Originally Posted by mike_302

You just opened a can of worms with every single OSAP-funded student here, which, unless you're a (pardon my language) prude, means a good portion of your friends.

CONGRATULATIONS!



Given your lack of comprehension for the cost of tuition, I'd say you fit in the "ignorant" category. Or else just AWFUL with numbers.

No, I am just one of those people who started saving since 5th grade. Governments should maybe do the same.

[quote=Misspolitics;23 4433]

Originally Posted by thedog123123

Wouldn't you agree that there are better investment options? A student who might drop out in first year,second year, etc. is not a very reliable way to invest and get your investment back.

a very simple law in economics is the fact that if you choose less riskier options you don't get as much payout. It only takes one Einstein to make a difference

[quote=thedog123123;23 4444]

Originally Posted by Misspolitics

a very simple law in economics is the fact that if you choose less riskier options you don't get as much payout. It only takes one Einstein to make a difference

This is true. However, Investors also teach that risky like "rubber band Inc." is not a good investment because it has no chance of a return.

[quote=Misspolitics;23 4445]

Originally Posted by thedog123123

This is true. However, Investors also teach that risky like "rubber band Inc." is not a good investment because it has no chance of a return.

I hope you are not implying that students have no chance to succeed?

[quote=thedog123123;23 4448]

Originally Posted by Misspolitics

I hope you are not implying that students have no chance to succeed?

Of course not. I'm sure that after the first two years, the number of students staying in school is very high, but the government, if contemplating investment, make a smart decision that would benefit alle of Canada not just students and that this investment would see a fair return in the shortest amount of time

Originally Posted by Misspolitics

No, I am just one of those people who started saving since 5th grade. Governments should maybe do the same.

I'm going to give you some background information, because you do sound like the ignorant and self-obsessed type (what with this, "I'm well off, screw everyone else if they didn't start saving when I did" crap):

The electron microscope, the tool credited with the discovery of many diseases, the development of vaccines, and just generally a metric $#!+ tonne of biological research that you and everyone else (including myself) takes for granted, was invented by someone of slightly less privilege than you and I, named J. Hillier (Brantford boy actually). Hillier received external funding which is cited by the existing foundation as "the only reason he was able to go to University".

Your Conservative ways would likely have prevented the invention of one of the world's greatest instruments in research which has kept you alive, because you believe only those who save money from Grade 5 onward, should have a chance in University.

Additionally, your preference to avoid investing in students because "You could invest elsewhere" is also poor economics, given the lack of diversity in the portfolio. For every student that the government puts a few thousand dollars into (a very small percentage of the pot), they have drastically diversified their investments.

Unfortunately, your method might also reduce the entrance averages, since less people (some of whom are far more intelligent) would be applying to University. Then we'd be stuck with University's with people who have been saving money since grade 5... Now there's a scary thought, given what I've seen about those people :S

I would also like to point out that your entire argument has the following basis:

- Harper is a saver, not a spender
- The Liberals are heavy spenders and poor money managers

And yet the past 8 consecutive years of a Liberal government had a surplus, while we are currently running a deficit by "The Harper Government". Granted, there was a recession, but they have not proved any ability to run a surplus...
Additionally, coming out of the Conservative era (early nineties, after the worst recession since the '30s, and immediately after the Conservatives were defeated by extraordinary numbers), Paul Martin, a member of the Liberal party, became Finance minister and was the one to bring Canada back to economic-life so to speak. (You won't believe any of this, but even the most Conservative of journalists will give the Liberals credit for this, so go have fun, but don't go doing something stupid and reading some uncited, and unaccredited piece of work).

Ultimately, what I'm getting at is: The Liberal party of late has demonstrated more money-managing ability than the Conservatives.

If students are so profitable, then why don't companies invest in students in that field? What if student A is a genius and earned a 97.5 average in highschool and is interested in chemistry or life sciences for university. Why doesn't a company involved with this invest? Because there is no guarantee that he will be an inovator like your example. That was just one example. For that one, there are thousands on the opposite spectrum and that is a loss of investment money. Also, I won't even waste my time writing about your rambles about me actually being responsible for my academic career. The only thing that does is discredits you as a valid debater.

Originally Posted by Misspolitics

If students are so profitable, then why don't companies invest in students in that field? What if student A is a genius and earned a 97.5 average in highschool and is interested in chemistry or life sciences for university. Why doesn't a company involved with this invest? Because there is no guarantee that he will be an inovator like your example. That was just one example. For that one, there are thousands on the opposite spectrum and that is a loss of investment money. Also, I won't even waste my time writing about your rambles about me actually being responsible for my academic career. The only thing that does is discredits you as a valid debater.

Oh but companies do invest in those students. They don't have taxpayers to answer to after, and they're often more philanthropic in that investment... They're called scholarships.

You've got a lot to learn young one It's okay. You also gave up "valid debating" a long time ago.

Look, you clearly have your view that students should not be invested in. And a large number of people in University would say otherwise. I'd say this is the best conclusion: You're going to vote Conservative, partly because you think the Federal government is wasting money by giving students money to attend school, and that money could be spent elsewhere... Now if only you had the courage to tell your friends that, including the ones receiving government funding.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Oh but companies do invest in those students. They don't have taxpayers to answer to after, and they're often more philanthropic in that investment... They're called scholarships.

You've got a lot to learn young one It's okay. You also gave up "valid debating" a long time ago.

Look, you clearly have your view that students should not be invested in. And a large number of people in University would say otherwise. I'd say this is the best conclusion: You're going to vote Conservative, partly because you think the Federal government is wasting money by giving students money to attend school, and that money could be spent elsewhere... Now if only you had the courage to tell your friends that, including the ones receiving government funding.

Okay. I see that, but they do not give money to everyone. The liberals want to give it to everyone. Yes, I told my friends about this topic and my views concerning it. And yes, before you ask, we're still friends. And most of them agree with me, so I guess you and I have a different set of friends

I already know the difference between your group and mine... You've dissociated yourself from people who receive government funding. There's not a chance in HELL that anyone receiving government funding would have ever agreed with your point of view.

I sincerely hope you accidentally befriended someone who does receive government funding. The reality of the situation would hit home a lot harder if they found out your point of view eventually, and raised that point to you.

Originally Posted by Misspolitics

If students are so profitable, then why don't companies invest in students in that field? What if student A is a genius and earned a 97.5 average in highschool and is interested in chemistry or life sciences for university. Why doesn't a company involved with this invest? Because there is no guarantee that he will be an inovator like your example. That was just one example. For that one, there are thousands on the opposite spectrum and that is a loss of investment money. Also, I won't even waste my time writing about your rambles about me actually being responsible for my academic career. The only thing that does is discredits you as a valid debater.

companies do invest in students. Typically only on graduate students. But most companies don't have the large sums of money that the government has. They have to pick and choose only the best students where as the government can make a riskier investment in hopes that a significant amount succeed and contribute back to the country.


Furthermore the government also gets their money back. OSAP is a loan. Like most loans some people will not pay it off before interest accumulates. Interest =$$.

It is a win win. The only time they truly lose is when the person they fund go off to a foreign country.

Originally Posted by thedog123123

companies do invest in students. Typically only on graduate students. But most companies don't have the large sums of money that the government has. They have to pick and choose only the best students where as the government can make a riskier investment in hopes that a significant amount succeed and contribute back to the country.


Furthermore the government also gets their money back. OSAP is a loan. Like most loans some people will not pay it off before interest accumulates. Interest =$$.

It is a win win. The only time they truly lose is when the person they fund go off to a foreign country.

That's the problem. The government thinks it can have cash flow by taxing us on everything and then spend it like it's a shopping spree. And this will be for undergraduate students. I would be okay with graduate students. They have a higher chance for return ( if we're talking investments)

You must highly segregate yourself from anyone less priviledged than you eh? So far you've made it clear you only converse with those students in University that are extremely well off financially (a very small section of students)...

Originally Posted by mike_302

You must highly segregate yourself from anyone less priviledged than you eh? So far you've made it clear you only converse with those students in University that are extremely well off financially (a very small section of students)...

Rofl! Not at all. Shows how much you DON'T know about me. My friends come from all walks of life and I respect that. the problem I have is people with entitlement issues. This really bothers me. On a side note, I like how this thread went through some interesting topics. This is quite enjoyable and I am waiting for the thread after the election. Very interesting