|
|
| Re: ***Everyone here has the ability to Do heavy Math in their Heads...FAST.*** (640303) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: ***Everyone here has the ability to Do heavy Math in their Heads...FAST.*** |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Jun 26 15:46:40 2008, in response to Re: ***Everyone here has the ability to Do heavy Math in their Heads...FAST.***, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jun 26 13:54:39 2008. From a previous message: "...and before SubChatters get up in arms and call me crazy, recall that once upon a time, CUNY was FREE...people got their college educations and the city didn't go broke...taxes paid for it all, and people paid less in taxes then, than today...Except the city did go broke...oops." In general there has always been a "debate" of sorts over the stuff the "regular folks should pay for", and stuff that the "particular users should pay for". The particular issue of the CUNY being tuition-free (student fees, books, and other needs were not free then of course!) and its abolishment in 1976 really had more to do with the city's fiscal crisis; the role of open admissions and the racial politics of that time; the role of the banking industry and their failed investments; President's Ford's and other's disparagement of the New York City for political purposes; middle-class resentment and the demonization of urban life in general; social welfare issues and the break-down of cities nation-wide, and the changing role of the city from an industrial based city to an information and technology based city. In summation, the fact that there was free tuition at the city's colleges - was not something that bankrupted the city! The fact that there was free tuition at the city's colleges was used as a metaphor for New York City's supposed "free spending ways". As I said there has always been a debate over government provided stuff, and what should be "free", and what should the particular users pay for. For example, why should children-less couples pay for the primary-intermediate-secondary educations of children that they did not create? Why should government buy land and use it for parks when that same land could be used for profitable business enterprises that can pay taxes? Why should government "subsidize" the transit fares of small children while their parents and other adults have to pay the full fare? Why not charge folks on how much clean water they use, as well as its delivery and sanitariness? As noted there has always been an argument over the "proper role" of government in promoting and protecting the general welfare of the people. Sometimes with these kinds of questions create some very nasty fist-fights and name-calling - but I hope that does not happen here. Mike |
|
|
|