Gas $5 a gallon in Europe?

[Jigster]

Trust me I can show you some mud holes that will gobble up a Semi.

There's a place called Shiloh Ridge just north of Alto, a guy made a big 4X4 ranch where ya pay a small fee and ya basically do whatever you want in his natural and man-made truck traps.

We use to go hunting for silt beds and rock holes after it rained (dirt roads are bad about those kinda things, specially when near a river)...now we got 'em all mapped.

I'm thinkin about buying a jeep to make into a rock climbing rig...the post '77 Broncos are just to heavy for it (about 5,000 pounds). The early Broncos can easily be rigged with hypo 302's but they ain't as flexible as jeeps as far as suspension mods go.

Btw that big blue thing might be ugly but he can dang near smoke all 4 tires in 4 wheel drive. 526 Ford (from 460 block) putting out over 600 HP and 800 foot/pounds of torque. Then there's a 400HP nitrous boost. That dang thing is a monster.

- Jig

winchs are for the weak.

[Dowding]

Funked - the money on fuel has been spent on a free health service, education (including subsidising university education) etc. Although neither are ideal, it beats taking up private health insurance or saving all your lives to send your kids to university, if you have little money.

[Ripsnort]

 

Originally posted by funked:
To answer Rip's original question:  "With 75% taxes on it? WHAT the hell is the European Gov't doing with all that money?"

Subsidizing Airbus.

THANK YOU, someone FINALLY answered the question with what I guess could be the correct answer, so, what we possibly have here is Aero-space workers who are actually on welfare??!?!  ROTFLOL !!!!

[Ripsnort]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
Funked - the money on fuel has been spent on a free health service, education (including subsidising university education) etc. Although neither are ideal, it beats taking up private health insurance or saving all your lives to send your kids to university, if you have little money.

Until you are really ill, or until have a life threatening disease/injury, you'll be satisfied with public health care, God forbid  if you ever become seriously ill, you'll eat those words, I know from fact.

What is wrong with saving for our childrens futures? If I made $10 a day, I'd still set something aside for my kids for their education...

[Maverick]

Dowding,

I agree with my countryman here. It is my reponsibility to save for my child's education, not the government. I have made investments with a modest amount and think I can provide an education for my son. I had to do it on my own, no dad (he died when I was 7) ansd I worked my way through college. I found I appreciated it much more than those kids who's family (or government) paid for the education they received. I intend that my son also work to help support his education as well so he can appreciate the value it has.

I feel people (me included) value that which has cost them something to obtain. They do not value that which is merely received for no effort.

Mav     <-- crusty old fart

[StSanta]

<- values his education, even though elements of it is very tedious, boring and should be left out.

Yet we have free universities here. Actually, the government is smart about ths; educated people earn more, give the country a competitive edge, and tend to be less prone to violence. Educated people generally belong to a part of the population with relatively small unemployment, too. And they seem to be less prone to react to political issues purely emotionally, making the political process more efficient.

Case in point; on the 28th, the population of Denmark votes with regards to the European Monetary Union. Amongst people with no university education, only 28% says aye. Amongst people with a longer education, the ayes have it by 71%. Our rightist party Fremskridtspartiet (the Progress Party) plays on the emotional tunes such as "preserving what is Danish" and "Slippery Slope" logical errors, and, consequently, a  comparatively large segment of the uneducated population supports those rightists.

An educated population is a benefit to a society. To large an uneducated one becomes a burden. I believe it is in the interest o a society as a whole to provide free university education. Free in monetary sense only; it ain't free in any other way, judging by the homework I have left to do  .

Off to lectures now, gonna learn how to make Aces High II (2d flight sim out soon  , stunning 4 colour graphics at the moment, two flying planes, the JG54 Greenheart and the Dweeb Tschog-4)

------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again"

[AKDejaVu]

 

Trust me I can show you some mud holes that will gobble up a Semi.

LOL! spoken like a true Texan.  Let me tell ya a little secret.  Buy a map of Oregon some time.  Circle the whole state.  That's our mud-bog.

If that's not quite good enough for ya... we'll send you up to Washington.  100 Feet of snow translates to quite a bit of mud.

Hehehehe... mud bogs my bellybutton

AKDejaVu

[Dowding]

I never said that you SHOULDN'T save for your kids education - my point is that you shouldn't have to - education should be free to all, regardless of financial status. By allowing only the wealthiest individuals to attend higher education, you are throwing away a huge proportion of bright kids. This in the end is uneconomical; the economic status of the country would increase if more people went to uni. - higher paid jobs,  bringing money into the country from overseas investment, is just one advantage.

I think education can solve alot of social problems. At uni. you meet alot of people, and your attitudes are shaped by your experiences. Black, white, gay, straight, bi, rich, poor, disabled - in the end it doesn't matter - you learn to appreciate people for who they are. If I'd stayed in the small northern town (which I certainly would have done, since my parents couldn't have afforded to pay for my education), with its small minded ideas, I wouldn't be as well-rounded as I am today. Its easy for people to be bigoted about someone based on their ignorance of that lifestyle , until they actually talk to someone whom they would normally despise. I personally used to be that way.

My education was paid for by the government - and I cannot put a value on it. Just because I didn't pay for the tuition doesn't mean I worked less for it. I came away with a good degree from one of the best universities in the UK. As for working for money, that is something I did every summer so I could afford to live at uni.

Ripsnort - I know from experience how good the health service is here, despite its critics. Just before my finals, 3 months ago, I had the first epileptic fit of my life. Didn't know it at the time,  the only way to find out for sure was to have a whole battery of tests. Expensive tests that I, as someone who as just left uni. and doesn't have any money, couldn't afford without the NHS. I'm just very grateful that we have such a system here, despite its faults.

StSanta - you're spot on there about the Euro. We have the same situation here - the conservatives playing on emotional arguments about preserving the 'greatness' of Britain and its sovreignty etc etc. I'm just waiting for the British Bulldog spirit to be exploited, with comments such as "Monetary union did not win us the War, did it?" Or, "Churchill said..." I'm for monetary union, any doubts I have concern making sure the conditions are right, not that we don't want to lose the pound.

BTW - I don't understand the Airbus link to high taxes. Could someone explain?



[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Maverick]

Dowding,


Please note, I am not being nasty about this but I'll never be able to get you to understand the crux of the post I made about the value of education. Both as a student myself or as a teacher, I have seen many students sitting in a class and doing only that which was necessary to slide by. Some did ansolutely nothing. The teachers knew they couldn't fail the kid, they were required to promote them. They will graduate with all the benefits of the years of "seat time" they spent in a classroom as required by government regulation. The Government regulation says they are entitled to a free education or a chance at one. There is no regulation that the student actually learn. We have seen later suits brought by these "graduates" of a free education wanting to sue the state for not making sure they learned. Like Ripley said, "believe it or not".

They had no concept of the value of what they were throwing away. Perhaps in a socialist nation, or at least one with a socialist "bent" to it a free education is a right granted by a government. Here the government does not grant rights.

I still stand by my position that a person does not value that which cost them nothing to obtain.

Mav

[Toad]

4 kids in my family on an AF Major's salary (hint: it was peanuts in the '60's); all got University degrees.

My brother went to a national miliatary academy; he paid it back by serving.

My sister worked her way through; she ran her own ballet classes on the side.

I was on a military ROTC scholarship and paid it back by serving.

My younger sister worked her way through as well, mostly as hospital staff.

Anyone that wants a degree here can get it.

[Dowding]

It would take alot more than what you say to offend me, Maverick don't worry. Criticising my football team would be a good start though.  

I can only comment on what I have experienced while in the British education system, so bare with me. Firstly, from the age of 14-16 kids take what are known as GCSE's. This is a structured program, with qualifications given based on performance in exams (taken at the end of the two years) or ongoing coursework. Believe me, you do no work here and you will fail and not get the qualification; I know alot of people who this has happened to.

At 16 you can move on to GCE 'A'-levels, based on what you achieved at GCSE; if you don't get the neccessary grades you can't do them - it's as simple as that. A-levels qualifications are given based on exams etc as before.

A-levels are then used to gain entry to university. Most people take 3 A-levels and points are awarded depending on what grade was achieved. Each university has a points and subject requirement. No work = crap grades = no university or a poor one (and any degree you get is then laughed at by employers).

Degree courses at most university's are not a push over - hard work is required and you get nothing for just turning up at lectures to increase your 'seat time' as you put it. Universiy's have no obligation to give a student a degree just because they made it that far. I knew people who were kicked out because they just smoked pot all day and did sweet FA the rest of the time.

Actually getting a degree requires committment, money to pay living expenses and very hard work. The pressure is on to get a good degree so you can get a decent well paid job, and make the time you spent studying worth it in the living standards stakes. It costs them plenty to obtain it, believe me. Why must everything be measured in purely monetary terms? An ex-girlfriend, for instance, had a nervous breakdown while at Cambridge uni. completing her finals. That cost her plenty - and I'm sure she wasn't an isolated case.

So to sum up (I know it was pretty boring), at no stage in the British education system can an individual do no work and still come out with the goods. It's simply not possible.

Also, most students finish their studies up to their eyes in debt (I know I did). BTW - students now have to pay a heavily subsidized part of their tuition fees, which is paid by taking out student loans. It's a disgrace that a 'socialist' government has brought this measure in, but that's another story entirely.

As I said I can't comment on your system - I haven't worked through it.

It's very commendable that your relatives could find a way to get to university - but why make self-improvement such a hard target to attain? Working on the side while studying is a very hard thing to do, and succeed academically (I know from both personal experience and from that of friends). I have nothing but admiration for anyone who can pull it off. But I know plenty of people who couldn't and ended up with crappy degrees as a result.

[Jigster]

 

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
LOL! spoken like a true Texan.  Let me tell ya a little secret.  Buy a map of Oregon some time.  Circle the whole state.  That's our mud-bog.

If that's not quite good enough for ya... we'll send you up to Washington.  100 Feet of snow translates to quite a bit of mud.

Hehehehe... mud bogs my bellybutton  

AKDejaVu

We've got swamps the size of Vermont in east Texas. I could try to show you those things but even our trucks won't make it there. Gotta use air boats. And the Skeeters rival the Buzzards in size. And it's to far from any beer. The cooler runs low after halfway.  

- Jig

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
It's very commendable that your relatives could find a way to get to university - but why make self-improvement such a hard target to attain

I don't think any of us thought it was a "big deal" or a "hard target". We knew what we wanted out of life and we knew what we needed to get there. So, we did it.

I don't think we are much different than anyone else, either. A "State University" education in the state of your residence isn't all that expensive. If you really want it, it's available.

If you value that "free education" and all the other government benefits you have written about then it doesn't seem to me that you should be complaining about the high taxes. Gas tax is pretty much where this thread started.

Any sentient adult knows there's no such thing as a free lunch. SOMEBODY is paying for all that stuff. Looks like your government has chosen to make people that use petroleum products pay a hefty share of the bill for all the "free" things.

If you choose to allow your government to allocate your income without your input to that degree....it's certainly OK by me because I don't live there.  

I would prefer a government that stays out of my life and out of my pocket to the maximum extent possible....although it seems more and more that we are sliding towards your type of government.

[StSanta]

Maverick:

While university education is free here, depending on what you want to become, it ain't easy to get in. Average grades to become a doc, for instance, are very high.

The college I attend have policies too; too low average grades, and yer out, no talk about it. Fail two exams in the same class, yer out.

So, no walk in the park paid by society. You have to earn your degree here as elsewhere  .

<Looks at homework, decides to put it off til tomorrow  

--
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"

[Dowding]

The point about the petrol tax is that it doesn't tax everyone, unlike say income tax. It is unfair and is a 'stealth tax'. Paying taxes doesn't bother me, per se, but they have to be fair and tax the whole population. I don't mind tax on petrol, but do mind when it's at the level it is at the moment.

As you say, you can go to State universities in the US. But am I right in saying that to go to Harvard, Yale etc, it costs a lot more money? Here, it doesn't work like that - Oxford and Cambridge can be attained whatever background you come from. Having said that though, it did used to be elitist and only accept people from non-state schools, and that was true for Durham many years ago. Times have changed however.