gordan campbell selling bc rivers

[ctsport]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

Yeah, we should take a few years off after grade 12 to work at our minimum wage jobs so i can save up for half of my undergrad tuition. I'll be out when I'm 26 with $12k debt then go back to working at a min- oh wait no, $14-hour job now!

You first msg came off as 'screw subsidizing university student's educational costs', but just now you make it sound like it's so easy to work during school, get all the scholarships, loans etc.

Like i said already, if education wasn't subsidized, everyone would be looking for jobs, everyone would be applying for loans, you would need 90%+ GPA to get scholarships. There's only so much jobs, loans, scholarships to go around for every student. Youre' telling me that you can do all that and if one cannot achieve those goals they dont deserve to be in school? I mean you sound like a smart guy with real good time-management.


I wasn't trying to put Arts student down in any way. I was just making examples of expensive program to something that's more general and cheaper.

But since you brought it up I found sthing quite odd; i've recently spoke with many recent Arts alums @ work, and most tell me they're either working in a field that's totally unrelated to their degree, or they're back in school majoring something else.

You're the exact kind of person who I think don't deserve a post-secondary education. You're too stupid (no offense intended). Any 18 year old can make $15+ an hour working at entry level jobs (restaurants, wholesalers, etc.) I was making 15+ an hour at age 16 working as a server lol! People waste tens of thousands of dollars every year on useless things like cars and TV's, and you're saying they can't afford an education? We're not living in Africa, people here are not starving. Any person in Canada who wants an education can easily get it. It just takes some effort.. as it should.

If people had to EARN the money.. and PAY for the FULL COST of tuition, you can bet your ass that they'll work hard at school and be much better students.

And your argument that eliminating tuition subsidies would increase GPA requirements is completely unsound LOL- as anyone who has taken economics 101 can attest. Its simple matter of supply and demand. If students had to pay the full cost of their tuition.. which would be higher than it is now.. there would be LESS students because many students would rather do something else with their time and money. The result would be LESS enrollment thus LOWERING demand thereby forcing colleges to LOWER their enrollment requirements.

And as for your last point, I have to ask, how old are you and how long have you been working? Anyone who hasn't been hiding in a cave for the last decade could tell you that having a degree, let alone your area of focus, is a piss-poor-indicator of future success. All the millionaires I personally know didn't even go to college, whereas the people I know who have the most formal education have only decent earning potential (under six figures). Do you really think that some 20 year old kid will be able to see where he'll be at in 20-30 years? LOL. Whatever a student major's in is next to irrelevant as to what job she gets. Any young person today entering the workforce should expect to change jobs.. if not entire industries every few years for the duration of her working life.. this is just the nature of our modern economy. What matters is not the title of your degree, but what one gets from the experience of going through the university process.

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by Black SC2

You have just forfeited all right to argue in political discussions as far as I'm concerned. You can't bitch about something in which you don't participate.

Voter apathy is the single greatest political problem in this country, at both the provincial and national levels. Greater than scandal. Greater than governmental waste. It's easy to blame politicians for doing a lousy job, but we give them little incentive to clean up their acts. Vote them in. Vote them out. Send them a message. Write your MLA. Get involved. Do these things or shut the fuck up.

Hah. I wouldn't go quite that far... I know a few people who haven't voted in various elections (be it provincial or federal) and their reasoning tends to be fairly universal: There are no parties that they feel comfortable electing. Sure, they may like one party because of their social ideology, but may absolutely hate their ideas on how the government should be run financially... or, they may like another party's environmental platform, but hate everything else. It's kinda hard to vote for a party when you don't agree with everything they stand for. They don't want to be partially responsible for something going through in government that they're against. It's all well and good to vote for the lesser of two (or three) evils, but sometimes you can't even do that through one's good conscious.

[twitchyzero]

Originally Posted by Black SC2

You have just forfeited all right to argue in political discussions as far as I'm concerned. You can't bitch about something in which you don't participate.

I reached the voting age not long ago. I'm still learning different parties and what they have to offer in depth.

[carisear]

i don't know if anyone has mentioned my next points out yet, but ...

on the topic of subsidized education:
Without a proper system in place, that will just lead to a huge money sinkhole. What's to stop people from getting a full education here, then moving to another country to work? I grew up in vancouver. i can honestly say that OVER 50% of the people i went to school with are no longer in this country. You still think taxpayers should be giving money to that?

regarding voter apathy:
- i would personally love if 100% of the population voted, however people voting just because they have to is NOT worthwhile. Just as it is a privilege TO vote, it's your right NOT to vote as well. if only 5% of the people vote, that should tell the politicians something -- perhaps they need to change their priorities?

[goo3]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

Working for the development office at UBC
i for one would not vote for liberals.

Tuition is rising annually at a very steady rate. The old gov't put a 10 year freeze on and the past 8 years the Liberals doesn't see it from a student's prespective.

Artificially capping tuition comes with a cost. Would you be willing to live with a shortage of seats and sky-high admission standards? That's what happened last time if you don't remember. Of course, if you're already in, you don't care. But what about everyone else?

A person in Alberta would be able to get a seat in University and come out with a degree while that person in BC (with the exact same marks) wouldn't have that opportunity. If you're the NDP, you can feel good about yourself. But you're not doing the students as a whole any favors. In fact, you're probably putting them at a disadvantage by denying them that piece of paper.

Yes, tuition's expensive, but a 10-yr cap is not a good solution. There's better ways of dealing with it.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

I reached the voting age not long ago. I'm still learning different parties and what they have to offer in depth.

and this is why HE SHOULD NOT VOTE. I'd rather have 10% vote where each person that votes is educated on the issues, than 100% vote and 90% voting on what the media spoon fed them - cause then the media is controlling the vote, not the citizens.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by taylor192

and this is why HE SHOULD NOT VOTE. I'd rather have 10% vote where each person that votes is educated on the issues, than 100% vote and 90% voting on what the media spoon fed them - cause then the media is controlling the vote, not the citizens.

I had a social-studies teacher in junior high, had an interesting idea: rather than every citizen automatically getting the right to vote at age 18, there should instead be a test of some sort, similar to a driver's test. If you can demonstrate a reasonable working knowledge of the relevant political system (be it federal, provincial, etc.), you get a "voter's license". You also lower the age limit... 16, 14, even less - even an intelligent, politically astute 12-year-old would be able to earn the right (anyone here old enough to get the reference if I mention Alex P. Keaton? ), while an ignorant, retarded, and/or easily-swayed person of any age would be prevented from simply making random or guided choices.

Such a concept might also help with voter apathy, as once you've put in the time and effort to actually EARN the right the vote, you might be more inspired to EXERCISE it now and then.

[Black SC2]

Originally Posted by Soundy

I had a social-studies teacher in junior high, had an interesting idea: rather than every citizen automatically getting the right to vote at age 18, there should instead be a test of some sort, similar to a driver's test. If you can demonstrate a reasonable working knowledge of the relevant political system (be it federal, provincial, etc.), you get a "voter's license". You also lower the age limit... 16, 14, even less - even an intelligent, politically astute 12-year-old would be able to earn the right (anyone here old enough to get the reference if I mention Alex P. Keaton? ), while an ignorant, retarded, and/or easily-swayed person of any age would be prevented from simply making random or guided choices.

Such a concept might also help with voter apathy, as once you've put in the time and effort to actually EARN the right the vote, you might be more inspired to EXERCISE it now and then.

I'd vote for that!

[MegaMx]

There's plain and simple only one reason I'm not voting NDP. Dumba$$e$ want to raise the minimum wage and increase cost to small business in this economy!!

[twitchyzero]

Originally Posted by ctsport

And your argument that eliminating tuition subsidies would increase GPA requirements is completely unsound LOL- as anyone who has taken economics 101 can attest. Its simple matter of supply and demand. If students had to pay the full cost of their tuition.. which would be higher than it is now.. there would be LESS students because many students would rather do something else with their time and money. The result would be LESS enrollment thus LOWERING demand thereby forcing colleges to LOWER their enrollment requirements.

Anyone who hasn't been hiding in a cave for the last decade could tell you that having a degree, let alone your area of focus, is a piss-poor-indicator of future success. All the millionaires I personally know didn't even go to college, whereas the people I know who have the most formal education have only decent earning potential (under six figures). Whatever a student major's in is next to irrelevant as to what job she gets. Any young person today entering the workforce should expect to change jobs.. if not entire industries every few years for the duration of her working life.. this is just the nature of our modern economy. What matters is not the title of your degree, but what one gets from the experience of going through the university process.

I don't see it as a simply supply and demand equation.
With the competitive nature of our modern society, many will still pursue higher education w/o subsidization. Sure there probably will be less than the current enrollment, but I can still foresee shortage in loans & scholarships.

The second part of your post is pretty much dependent on whether you take a general studies or opt to go for a professional program afterwards.

If one's satisfied with their career path there shouldn't be much changes to their plans. I understand people changing up careers or even industries, but those that are always switching it up every few years seems to be a sign of instability.

Originally Posted by carisear

i
Without a proper system in place, that will just lead to a huge money sinkhole. What's to stop people from getting a full education here, then moving to another country to work? I grew up in vancouver. i can honestly say that OVER 50% of the people i went to school with are no longer in this country. You still think taxpayers should be giving money to that?

Although i'm for subsidization of educational costs, that's an excellent point.

Originally Posted by taylor192

and this is why HE SHOULD NOT VOTE. I'd rather have 10% vote where each person that votes is educated on the issues, than 100% vote and 90% voting on what the media spoon fed them - cause then the media is controlling the vote, not the citizens.

Meh, I'm not so prone to media bias as I'm originally from a place where media pollution severely impairs the vote results.

And what's the actual % of BC residents actually voting every year? Is it ~25%?

[penner2k]

Originally Posted by carisear

I grew up in vancouver. i can honestly say that OVER 50% of the people i went to school with are no longer in this country. You still think taxpayers should be giving money to that?

I dont know how they could stop that from happening though.

The only thing I can think of is have 2 rates. You can pay a reduced rate for post sec. but have to sign a contract that you will work in the country for lets say 5 years or you pay on par with schools that dont get funding and can leave the country right after. If you do stay and work for 5 years than apply to have the difference paid back to you.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

I don't see it as a simply supply and demand equation.

No its about false credentials. There is no demand for university grads with low grades or in certain programs, yet lots of jobs demand "a degree" regardless of what degree it is.

I read this fantastic article about ditching university completely and replacing it with standardized tests like Accountants have to pass. That way you can chose how you want to study to pass the test (self-study, college, university, private school, tutor, ...) eliminating the requirement to waste 3-5 years in university if you could get it done faster.

The standardized test would also ensure each person in that industry has certain credentials, something you have to request the transcript of university grad to determine. I used to take part in hiring at my former company, and there were tons of times we requested a transcript only to find Cs/Ds in the area our company specialized in, the degree itself meant nothing at that point.

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

The second part of your post is pretty much dependent on whether you take a general studies or opt to go for a professional program afterwards.

His argument is flawed anyways, statistically people with degrees make a LOT more than those without. The millionaires he quotes are the exception, not the rule. Imagine how little others without degrees make if averaged out with the millionaires he quotes... I wouldn't want to be them.

[aperfectcircle]

Originally Posted by ctsport

Anyone who hasn't been hiding in a cave for the last decade could tell you that having a degree, let alone your area of focus, is a piss-poor-indicator of future success. All the millionaires I personally know didn't even go to college, whereas the people I know who have the most formal education have only decent earning potential (under six figures).

A degree from a credible institution is hardly a "worthless" piece of paper. Anyone who says that either didn't do it, couldn't do it, obtained one but didn't capitalize on the benefits of having one (of which there are many, even for random BA's in Philosophy), or just didn't make the cut in some way academically. The number of millionaires who did not inherit the money with some form of higher education will very likely outnumber those without. A postgraduate degree is a much better dividing line between the chaff and the hard workers; any idiot can ace high school and barely pass through University, while it usually takes a real aptitude and work ethic to make the cut into a decent Master's program.

That said I am 100% *opposed* to tuition freezes. There is by far an overabundance of people going to university for the hell of it. I fully support scholarships; people who make Dean's list deserve to have their tuition funded and encourages everyone to work that much harder. Bursaries and student loans are pretty badly abused so I think a new system should be in place to deal with that.

[roastpuff]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

Meh, I'm not so prone to media bias as I'm originally from a place where media pollution severely impairs the vote results.

And what's the actual % of BC residents actually voting every year? Is it ~25%?

Isn't that still media bias? Pollution (interesting choice of words there) causing effects in the voting preferences of the general population is in other words... bias.

Also, a quick Google would've made yourself look less lazy and ignorant. 55% in 2001, 58% in 2005. Going to be higher this year, considering how much positive response I've gotten when volunteering on the phone lists.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by aperfectcircle

A postgraduate degree is a much better dividing line between the chaff and the hard workers; any idiot can ace high school and barely pass through University, while it usually takes a real aptitude and work ethic to make the cut into a decent Master's program.

Its sad that "higher education" has gotten to the point where 6-7 years is needed to separate real aptitude.

Worse, in my degree it doesn't even do that. I'm in engineering, and graduated when the high-tech bubble burst. Those of us with great grades and/or experience still were able to land jobs, while many of my peers went back to do their Masters and schools were happy to accept them (Masters tuition is more than double undergrad). So think about it, the best and brightest went out to industry, while those who couldn't get jobs spent another 2 years trying to separate themselves form the pack.

That period of time has made even a Masters in Eng worthless, as many Masters grads are not the best and brightest, just the rejects that couldn't get jobs and rode out the downturn. I know, our hiring reflected at how many useless Masters grads there were applying.

Guess what? Its happening all over again this recession.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by roastpuff

Isn't that still media bias? Pollution (interesting choice of words there) causing effects in the voting preferences of the general population is in other words... bias.

There's a few studies that show voter preference towards the local media preference. Society tends to trust the news, thus if the news is even slightly biased, the vote will reflect this bias.

Lucky for me the bias is for the BC Liberals here, while it was against the Ontario PCs in Ottawa.

[twitchyzero]

Originally Posted by roastpuff

Isn't that still media bias? Pollution (interesting choice of words there) causing effects in the voting preferences of the general population is in other words... bias.

Also, a quick Google would've made yourself look less lazy and ignorant. 55% in 2001, 58% in 2005. Going to be higher this year, considering how much positive response I've gotten when volunteering on the phone lists.

Yeah, i meant there's lots of media bias there, thus i'm can better filter out the bias that goes on here.

Gotta love the 'got Google?' response. Why do I need to open up Google while we're already on a very similar topic? 58% was actually more than I expected.

[asahai69]

Originally Posted by MegaMx

There's plain and simple only one reason I'm not voting NDP. Dumba$$e$ want to raise the minimum wage and increase cost to small business in this economy!!

A fucken MEN to that.

[iEatClams]

Originally Posted by taylor192

There are so many things wrong with your post.


and the point of posting this way? more sensationalism?

Did you know if we held JFK to the same political standards we do today, he would have never been elected. Politics shouldn't be the popularity contest people like you make it out to be... and you're a fucking lefty who's suposed to be above that petty politics.


Health care has become a problem and NO PROVINCE HAS SOLVED IT including provinces with left governments.

I disagree with the lower tuition, university has become a haven to grads who obtain worthless degrees, and by your posts you haven't learned much from school, aka worthless.


There's so much wrong here I need bullets:
- privatizing rivers is false, since the public wasn't doing anything with them in the first place
- the new bridges are awesome, its the streets the bridges cannot solve. You can put wider bridges, 2 bridges, ... yet unless you widen the city streets it will not help.
- why keep BC Rail? Lets here a good argument, since the US works very well with privatized rail, hell it built their country!
- why harp on the DUI again? more sensationalism cause you don't have much else to say
- follow the news, the increased police force made a bunch of arrests, seems to have worked unlike the lefties that wouldn't have done anything
- the lefties slap wrists and constantly block measures for tougher punishments federally, please keep up with Canadian politics
- the NDP are the worst choice right now, for all the above reasons and more


Good ideas, do you have $32B to fund this? I don't, and the increase in taxes to cover such elaborate projects would hurt our pocketbooks.

Do you know how the Chinese pay for their infrastructure? Look it up and come back without such ignorant arguments.

Here's an example:
BC can build more public power plants, borrowing money and increasing taxes to pay for it. Or we can let private companies build them and charge us more for electricity to cover their costs. Either way WE ARE PAYING THE BILL via increased costs or increases taxes. Personally I'd rather increases costs, cause I can control how much I use, I cannot control how much the government takes from my paycheque.


It was over budget, yet its done and will be used. Cannot say the same of the fast ferries.


If the lefties would allow society to institutionalism the mentally ill, then homelessness might be defeated. Instead the left gave the mentally ill the right to accept government handouts while roaming the streets as prey for drug dealers.

We've tried the lefty solution to end homeless by catering to their needs, and it hasn't worked. We need a true "right" approach, not more homeless hugging left policies.



Pointless unless you consider the area served by the SeaToSky pumps a lot of money into the economy, and better serving that area should be a huge plus for the economy.

Perhaps Oak st needs a barrier down the middle too, since any street where cars can do 80+ will be a death trap. Or perhaps drivers should get proper tires and stop taking on their cell phone. I hate you lefties that think the government is responsible for forcing you into how to be safe.

Any personal responsibility seems to be missing from the left.


Dude, this is where you show your complete and utter stupidity. That's a CONSERVATIVE argument, not NDP.

NDP believes in taxing people to pay for public projects, thus increasing taxes on cars and houses to pay for public transportation. Perhaps you should look up your own NDP policies.

Please don't post anymore political opinions again, you're sadly misinformed ignorant sheep that just goes with what the media spoon feeds you. If this is the education my tax dollars subsidizes, I hope they triple tuition so people like you cannot attend school.

fucking epic post!

-- except for the last sentence I don't agree with.

government needs to subsidize students still. just wish we can subsidize more for medical programs or trades (where what you learn will actually be useful).

[scheng924]

i didn't read the whole page here but here's my thing on privatizing rivers...

what's james gonna do? stop it?.. then what.. go back to coal burning...
if the gov't instead of privatizing them and handle the projects on their own... where is the money going to come from... our taxes... that being said.. privatizing is not increasing our taxes...

[m!chael]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

I get my facts from journals that publish school endowment stats every fiscal year. You get your facts from a political party website. I wonder which has more room for bias? I've spoken to over thousands of alums from as far back as 1950's up to ones that graded last year, all from different disciplines. I believe I voice somewhat representative from a university student's point of view of multiple disciplines & era. I'm not here to bash on Liberals nor support NDP. Hell, i dont even vote.

I pay a bit more than double of your annual tuition, but that's not the point.

Tuition freeze has it's +'s and -'s. BC's tuition levels were below national avg in the 90's, but recently it's been jumping up 2-5% each year. If you take taht 2% of your $7k a year, it adds up to quite a bit if you did your degree in 5 years.

Isn't VSB going to be under $44 million deficit next year? They've closed down so many elementary schools too. But the K-12 education issue is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Where are these journals at? give me a good link or two, I'm not being sarcastic I would actually appreciate more info on the matter.

[SlySi]

Originally Posted by ctsport

Bullshit.

If a person really wants a post-secondary education, they could work full time for a few years and save up for their education. They could then work part time while enrolled and get scholarships and government loans to make up the rest. If they can't even do that then they don't deserve to be in college.

You're ignorent.... simple as that.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by SlySi

You're ignorent.... simple as that.

It's ignorant

It's hard to criticize someone's opinion on education when you cannot put together a coherent, grammatically correct, spell-checked argument.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by scheng924

i didn't read the whole page here but here's my thing on privatizing rivers...

what's james gonna do? stop it?.. then what.. go back to coal burning...
if the gov't instead of privatizing them and handle the projects on their own... where is the money going to come from... our taxes... that being said.. privatizing is not increasing our taxes...

The NDP are worried about private companies record on the environment. They only need to look to Alberta to see how money trumps the environment (tar sands tailing ponds)

To build the smaller hydro projects proposed, roads/electrical lines would have to to get to the river (clear cutting forest) and some water diverted (changing environments, yet on a smaller scale than the hydro-electric dams).

The government won't invest in these projects cause of their small scale (and lack of funds) yet there's enough "green" private money running around now that there's interest in the private sector.

Personally I think hydro is by far the better alternative to solar/wind/nuclear, and the damage to the river environment is outweighed by the damage other solutions cause.

[unit]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Its ignorant

Its hard to criticize someone's opinion on education when you cannot put together a coherent, grammatically correct, spell-checked argument.

Originally Posted by taylor192

- why keep BC Rail? Lets here a good argument,

I agree...