I just got a phone call e-mail off the waitlist, fyi.
Messages - hegemonyhog
So, I keep getting confused about Stafford Loan eligibility. In some cases, it seems like there's $20.5k a year available regardless of need (the only distinction is between the subsidized and unsubsidized amounts). In other cases, it seems like you can only borrow up to your demonstrated level of need.
Which one's right?
I got the Darrow yesterday! Wow. Does anyone have any suggestions- Darrow, Stanford, or Harvard? My decision is going to be so much harder than I thought. I also want to extend hope out there to other low LSATs (mine is a 169).
I chose Michigan - PM me if you want more info.
« on: February 25, 2008, 01:16:25 PM »
Regarding housing: there are a ton of great condos for rent in Ypsilanti if you have a car. My girlfriend and I are renting one that's pretty reasonable (2BR, 2 bath), and I knew that I wanted to be able to leave campus when I was done for the day.
One question: is anyone else looking for summer employment in Ann Arbor? How are you planning to look?
« on: February 17, 2008, 04:28:56 PM »
I didn't say that the government shouldn't be funded so I don't know where your getting that. I said the government should not take money from some people and then give it to others. I think the government should fund a military, and a court system, and a police/fire department force.
...And how, exactly, does government do that with no funding mechanism?
Having insurance isn't even a close comparison. I object to the government transfer of wealth on the grounds that it isn't a choice that people are making, it is done by force. Purchasing insurance is a transaction to which both parties agree to (other than mandated insurance in some cases).
Again, you're advocating anarchy. The only way the government gets funds is to place taxes/tarriffs on things, unless it prints its own money, which destabilizes the entire system. How does the government do even your basic (and woefully incomplete) list of tasks with no funding mechanism?
The government's job is to protect people from force/fraud. This includes from other countries (via a standing military) and our own (police/fire departments and judicial system). The government's job was not originally, and should not be, to take money by force from some people (which seems remarkably similar to stealing) and give it to others.
Which is why I asked about the insurance. The very nature of insurance is that money is taken from all parties and distributed according to need rather than pay-in. You may pay $250 a month to insure your car and I may pay $50 to insure mine, but if you never wreck yours and I get t-boned in an intersection, I get the $5,000 my car is worth...and you keep paying.
Government is fundamentally an insurance policy, and the reason the force you so decry is necessary is because there's no way to strategically opt people out of the services it provides to insure order. In the case of a fire, for instance, the fire department can't just put out the fire of the people who decide to pay taxes, as any fire constitutes a threat to the entire community.
And again, you've removed the entire funding mechanism, so have fun with your buckets of water.
Social Security and Medicaid/care are HORRIBLE programs both in principle and in practice. People should be able to choose for themselves how to save for retirement, the government is not intended to be a babysitter. The same goes for Medicaid/care. It is not the governments job to take my money and give it to other people in order for them to have medical care. In practice both of the programs are sending our economy into hell. Listen to any of the congressional meetings on either program or on the national debt. Every who has looked into the programs has been pleading for something to be done.
Actually, they aren't "sending our economy into hell", and I have no idea what Congress you're watching. Social Security under the most likely scenario can be funded with minor tweaks indefinitely, and the rise in Medicare/Medicaid costs has nothing to do with the program and everything to do with rapidly escalating healthcare costs outside of the program.
Also, Social Security in particular is the single greatest anti-poverty program in American history. That's simply a fact.
Relentless selfishness has nothing to do with anything I have said. I don't think that we should forget about our poor and disenfranchised. I think that people should help one another. I just don't think the government should have any role in it, rather it should be voluntary.
Which inevitably leads to government interaction of the non-beneficial variety. Suppose a community doesn't help those in need - there are no schools for the poor, no unemployment, no nothing. Inevitably, those ignored problems become criminal problems, which simply exacerbate themselves unless some measure of prevention and remedy is put in place.
Everything you say is about relentless selfishness. You shouldn't be "forced" to do anything unless you want to do it, except for those things you should be forced to do because you're okay with them, but you can't say how you'd be forced to do them, because it's contradicted in your basic statement of principles.
« on: February 16, 2008, 09:27:59 PM »
First, how is it advocating anarchy? The government has a role to play, just not taking money from some and giving it to others. Society not only would exist, but it would be better if the government did not take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor.
Hint: Government has to be funded.
Even pre-income tax, a variety of tariffs and other fees/taxes funded government. Money has to come from somewhere to provide for the services of government. Without it...anarchy.
What truly bothers me about arguments like this, though, is that they're inevitably based off a simplistic and falsely atavistic ideal - if we could just get back to the point where we were all rugged individualists blazing our own path, everything would be so much better.
Do you have insurance on anything you own?
And lastly, the "take it from the rich and give it to the poor" is, well, asinine. If government doesn't address those in need and try to reduce the impact that the needy have upon the not-needy, then it's not doing its job. Strong regulations help preserve the private market. A strong military protects our way of life. Social Security and Medicaid/care are two of the strongest antipoverty programs ever conceived of.
What you're saying is so brutally ignorant and ill-conceived that its lack of basis in fact only serves to highlight the truly sad impulse behind it - relentless selfishness in the face of reality.
I know. I know. It' overpriced, but I'm very shallow. Form over function. Every and any day.
I'm going solar-powered crank laptop all the way. You laugh, but when I have $2200 extra from my computer loan and you're dripping ramen water on your fancy 3-pound work of industrial art, I'll be having my personal servant bring me Otis Spunkmeyer muffins from the commissary on my disposable china.
When I waste money, I waste it to the extreme.