# Sanders just submitted college for all bill.



## Penelope

*Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*


*Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation

would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public

colleges and universities.

Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under

*the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would

be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *

To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect

students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their

higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,

colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.

*States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,

and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*

No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina

4

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,

For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.

also anything free, is well taken for granted.

also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.

Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?

When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.

I'm not understanding this I guess.


----------



## Conservative65

Penelope said:


> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.



How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.


----------



## Arianrhod

Apparently some people see the word "tax" and their brains shut down.

Here's a one-page summary of the proposal:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

Let me quote the only part that's apparently of concern (no one here has college-age kids?):

*Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.*
This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
s, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee 
on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could 
raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges
and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the 
middle class of this country.

I'll be happy to break it down further if anyone's interested but, bottom line, unless you're a hedge fund manager (and a bad one), you've got nothing to worry about.


----------



## Penelope

_Apparently some states are going to depend on lottery money, gambling, I'm not, free anything is not appreciated, esp. Times have changed, we use to have part time jobs to help us get through college, which some rich kids just partied their 4 years away. I  have read that only a portion of our lotto money for schools is going towards schools, which was suppose to all go towards schools, but we have a full time government, why I do not know._


On Tuesday, Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill that will make tuition free for all high school graduates who go to a two-year college. It now heads to Gov. Bill Haslam (R)’s desk, who has made it a signature part of his campaign to improve the state’s graduation rates from 32 percent to 55 percent by 2025.

Beyond graduating from high school, students who participate in the Tennessee Promise program will have to maintain a 2.0 grade point average, attend mandatory meetings, work with a mentor, and do community service. After they graduate two-year colleges, they can enroll in a four-year school as juniors.

The program, which is expected to cost about $34 million a year, will be paid for using $300 million in excess lottery reserve funds and by creating a $47 million endowment. The bill also lowers the state’s current scholarship for four-year colleges, which is funded with lottery money, from $4,000 to $3,500 for freshmen and sophomores, although it will increase to $4,500 for juniors and seniors.

Tennessee will be the first state to offer free college tuition, although Florida, Mississippi, and Oregon are considering similar plans. Others have looked at so-called “pay it forward” plans that allow students to attend community colleges or public universities at no cost but require them to pay a certain portion of their income after graduation — one model would have community college students pay 1.5 percent of their incomes for 20 years after graduation.

But the federal government could go even further than any of these states. For the amount that it already spends on subsidizing the cost of college through grants, tax breaks, and work-study funds — or about $69 billion — it could instead make tuition at all public colleges free for about $63 billion. (The government spends another $107.4 billion on student loans, given it even more funds to use for this purpose.) While not everyone would attend a public university, it would incentivize private ones to lower costs in order to compete with the free option.

This State Will Offer Free College Tuition To High School Graduates


----------



## Arianrhod

^Good on Tennessee!  Only for two-year colleges (the Sanders proposal is for four-year state colleges), but it's a start.


----------



## Penelope

Arianrhod said:


> Apparently some people see the word "tax" and their brains shut down.
> 
> Here's a one-page summary of the proposal:
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file
> 
> Let me quote the only part that's apparently of concern (no one here has college-age kids?):
> 
> *Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.*
> This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
> s, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee
> on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could
> raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges
> and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the
> middle class of this country.
> 
> I'll be happy to break it down further if anyone's interested but, bottom line, unless you're a hedge fund manager (and a bad one), you've got nothing to worry about.



Yes that if his presidential plan, the other one I listed is an act he just put in.  Your going to need a full Dem congress to get the above approved. I do think its not a bad idea to put a little gov tax on stocks.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Nothing involving cost is free.  Someone pays for it.


----------



## Penelope

Arianrhod said:


> ^Good on Tennessee!  Only for two-year colleges (the Sanders proposal is for four-year state colleges), but it's a start.



Ca use to , not sure if they do anymore. I think not due to money shortage.


----------



## Manonthestreet

So states get stuck with another Fed mandate they dont have in their budget    great plan.......and just another item to keep the printing press running devaluing your money further


----------



## Penelope

Manonthestreet said:


> So states get stuck with another Fed mandate they dont have in their budget    great plan.......and just another item to keep the printing press running devaluing your money further



It looks like that, everyone is going to pay, even the 70 year old couple living next door when they themselves put their children through college.  They should be exempt from increases , if they live below a certain wage, because they don't have lots of savings due to the fact they helped put their kids through college.


----------



## Manonthestreet

and of course Feds attach stipulations which will balloon into toal Fed control and advancement of lib agendas.......all bs all the time...not really about education its about power


----------



## Arianrhod

Manonthestreet said:


> and of course Feds attach stipulations which will balloon into toal Fed control and advancement of lib agendas.......all bs all the time...not really about education its about power



Not to mention spelling and punctuation.

Your Congresscritters would of course be totally powerless to affect the outcomes here.  Maybe you need some new Congresscritters.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Arianrhod said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> and of course Feds attach stipulations which will balloon into toal Fed control and advancement of lib agendas.......all bs all the time...not really about education its about power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention spelling and punctuation.
> 
> Your Congresscritters would of course be totally powerless to affect the outcomes here.  Maybe you need some new Congresscritters.
Click to expand...

My Sen's would be all for it since they are dems and its about extending dem power .....not education


----------



## Arianrhod

Manonthestreet said:


> My Sen's would be all for it since they are dems...



What about your representatives?

Alternatively, your state legislature could get out ahead of this like Tennessee and show it wants its students to be competitive with those in other countries.

A lot of people talk about "states' rights," but there doesn't seem to be much talk about "states' responsibilities."


----------



## Manonthestreet

I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea


----------



## Arianrhod

Manonthestreet said:


> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea



So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Arianrhod said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
Click to expand...

Which of course I didnt say


----------



## williepete




----------



## Stephanie

Don't you all love that. How easy is it for these SNAKES to give away things like free college for all when it's NOT their money paying for it.

here's the kicker from the snake:*the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would

what he means is. YOU THE TAXPAYER and (your families would go with LESS because of it) would be Responsible

that old coot has been in Congress sucking a living off us taxpayers for how many gawddam years and he NOW decides to present some bill that will suck the life out of us Taxpayers and their families. just for the VOTES

wake up people*


----------



## Arianrhod

Manonthestreet said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of course I didnt say
Click to expand...

Sanders' proposal is about education.  Your posts are anti-fed, anti-Dem rants.  Post something substantive about education.


----------



## Arianrhod

Stephanie said:


> Don't you all love that. How easy is it for these SNAKES to give away things like free college for all when it's NOT their money paying for it.



(1) It's free tuition at STATE colleges
(2) Are you a hedge fund manager?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Arianrhod said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of course I didnt say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanders' proposal is about education.  Your posts are anti-fed, anti-Dem rants.  Post something substantive about education.
Click to expand...

Sanders bill is about advancing dem doctrine thru Fed mandates otherwise you get jack......next


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

This won't pass nor should it.  All Sanders would be doing is further contributing to the problem of increasing tuition rates.


----------



## Arianrhod

Manonthestreet said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of course I didnt say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanders' proposal is about education.  Your posts are anti-fed, anti-Dem rants.  Post something substantive about education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanders bill is about advancing dem doctrine thru Fed mandates otherwise you get jack......next
Click to expand...


And this is why more Americans need better education.  Thank you for illustrating my point.


----------



## Arianrhod

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> This won't pass nor should it.  All Sanders would be doing is further contributing to the problem of increasing tuition rates.


Fascinating hypothesis.  Please explain.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Arianrhod said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of course I didnt say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanders' proposal is about education.  Your posts are anti-fed, anti-Dem rants.  Post something substantive about education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanders bill is about advancing dem doctrine thru Fed mandates otherwise you get jack......next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is why more Americans need better education.  Thank you for illustrating my point.
Click to expand...


I think you have it backwards.......llmaaaoooo   or you're just the avg truth challenged lib here


----------



## Stephanie

Anything these progressive/Socialist presents like this free college for all. is not freedom. Remember what they the Master Guberment can give, they can also take it away or make more DEMANDS on you: their new slaves


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Apparently some people see the word "tax" and their brains shut down.
> 
> Here's a one-page summary of the proposal:
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file
> 
> Let me quote the only part that's apparently of concern (no one here has college-age kids?):
> 
> *Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.*
> This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
> s, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee
> on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could
> raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges
> and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the
> middle class of this country.
> 
> I'll be happy to break it down further if anyone's interested but, bottom line, unless you're a hedge fund manager (and a bad one), you've got nothing to worry about.



*This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
s, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee 
on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could 
raise hundreds of billions a year*

Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?


----------



## Penelope

Soon there won't be stick and motor colleges, no sense in adding on to them. I know teachers who got teaching degrees via net and did on the job training in her area ,, and also one does not need to go to school, except for testing's or for on the job training, or chemistry  classes, etc. There goes a lot of construction jobs,  teaching jobs, janitor jobs, etc. That will become the norm In they say 20 years. 

They are even thinking of changing law schools, learn the basics and then pick your area, work under a mentor.

I mean today, a teen is young as 12 and as old as 29, start younger and last longer.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?


Over a 0.05% fee?  Not gonna happen.



Stephanie said:


> Anything these progressive/Socialist presents like this free college for all. is not freedom. Remember what they the Master Guberment can give, they can also take it away or make more DEMANDS on you: their new slaves



Hey, everybody!  Did you know Stephanie's a hedge fun manager?  Crazy, right?


----------



## Arianrhod

Penelope said:


> Soon there won't be stick and motor colleges, no sense in adding on to them. I know teachers who got teaching degrees via net and did on the job training in her area ,, and also one does not need to go to school, except for testing's or for on the job training, or chemistry  classes, etc. There goes a lot of construction jobs,  teaching jobs, janitor jobs, etc. That will become the norm In they say 20 years.
> 
> They are even thinking of changing law schools, learn the basics and then pick your area, work under a mentor.
> 
> I mean today, a teen is young as 12 and as old as 29, start younger and last longer.


A trade school degree costs about 33K, which puts it out of reach for many families.  Trade schools would be included in the proposed legislation.

Once upon a time, BTW, state college tuition _was_ free or as low as $50 a semester.


----------



## irosie91

this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
proposal to fly


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?
> 
> 
> 
> Over a 0.05% fee?  Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...


*Over a 0.05% fee?* 

Ummmmm.......

*0.5% on stock trades 
*
Perhaps you need a math class?
*
It has been estimated that this provision could  raise hundreds of billions a year*

Yes, hundreds of billions a year would be a great incentive to move operations.


----------



## Arianrhod

irosie91 said:


> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly



IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!

Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
Click to expand...


No. It is a tax on all stock trades. Higher costs for my mutual funds takes money away from my retirement.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?
> 
> 
> 
> Over a 0.05% fee?  Not gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Over a 0.05% fee?*
> 
> Ummmmm.......
> 
> *0.5% on stock trades
> *
> Perhaps you need a math class?
> *
> It has been estimated that this provision could  raise hundreds of billions a year*
> 
> Yes, hundreds of billions a year would be a great incentive to move operations.
Click to expand...

Okay, one zero too many.  I plead guilty to being mathmactically dyslexic.

That said, stop and think for a minute: If a 0.5% per hedge fund transaction will raise billions, just how much revenue do hedge funds generate?

P.S. Hedge-fund speculation on subprime mortgage bundles was what caused the crash in '08.  Also, hedge funds are only a portion of the stock market.  You do understand that, right?


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It is a tax on all stock trades. Higher costs for my mutual funds takes money away from my retirement.
Click to expand...

If your broker is an idiot.  If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.  Kind of like when a retailer hides the sales tax in the cost of the widget you're buying.


----------



## TooTall

Arianrhod said:


> Apparently some people see the word "tax" and their brains shut down.
> 
> Here's a one-page summary of the proposal:
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file
> 
> Let me quote the only part that's apparently of concern (no one here has college-age kids?):
> 
> *Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.*
> This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
> s, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee
> on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could
> raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges
> and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the
> middle class of this country.
> 
> I'll be happy to break it down further if anyone's interested but, bottom line, unless you're a hedge fund manager (and a bad one), you've got nothing to worry about.



Break this down further for me.

*the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would

be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *


----------



## irosie91

Arianrhod said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
Click to expand...


I don't..........seems to me everyone else does--------so I keep quiet when the subject is
mentioned-------should I google?     should I care?


----------



## irosie91

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It is a tax on all stock trades. Higher costs for my mutual funds takes money away from my retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your broker is an idiot.  If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.  Kind of like when a retailer hides the sales tax in the cost of the widget you're buying.
Click to expand...


what is a   "widget"    ?        It is not legal to hide the sales tax in the price------or so I used to
believe


----------



## Arianrhod

irosie91 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't..........seems to me everyone else does--------so I keep quiet when the subject is
> mentioned-------should I google?     should I care?
Click to expand...


Because you were open-minded enough to ask, I'll do that for you:

Hedge fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know the explanation just makes it more confusing, but basically it comes down to money making money on money.  It's the wealthy investors' equivalent of playing the slots...except that they own the casino.


----------



## irosie91

isn't a widget something in the lawn game  croquet????


----------



## Penelope

Arianrhod said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soon there won't be stick and motor colleges, no sense in adding on to them. I know teachers who got teaching degrees via net and did on the job training in her area ,, and also one does not need to go to school, except for testing's or for on the job training, or chemistry  classes, etc. There goes a lot of construction jobs,  teaching jobs, janitor jobs, etc. That will become the norm In they say 20 years.
> 
> They are even thinking of changing law schools, learn the basics and then pick your area, work under a mentor.
> 
> I mean today, a teen is young as 12 and as old as 29, start younger and last longer.
> 
> 
> 
> A trade school degree costs about 33K, which puts it out of reach for many families.  Trade schools would be included in the proposed legislation.
> 
> Once upon a time, BTW, state college tuition _was_ free or as low as $50 a semester.
Click to expand...


I never lived where state college was free, but yes college tuition has gone up so much, why, I know a teacher who got their degree online and by doing  testing and in-service at  a local school she lived by. Most brick and mortar colleges do more and more via internet.


----------



## Arianrhod

irosie91 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It is a tax on all stock trades. Higher costs for my mutual funds takes money away from my retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your broker is an idiot.  If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.  Kind of like when a retailer hides the sales tax in the cost of the widget you're buying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is a   "widget"    ?        It is not legal to hide the sales tax in the price------or so I used to
> believe
Click to expand...


"Widget" is just a word I used for "whatever you buy in a retail store."  What I was thinking of was the fact that some retailers will price something at the round dollar price - instead of $9.99, they'll charge you a flat $10 and subtract the sales tax later.  Streamlines the checkout process and the accounting process.  Don't know if it's illegal...maybe it varies by state.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?
> 
> 
> 
> Over a 0.05% fee?  Not gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Over a 0.05% fee?*
> 
> Ummmmm.......
> 
> *0.5% on stock trades
> *
> Perhaps you need a math class?
> *
> It has been estimated that this provision could  raise hundreds of billions a year*
> 
> Yes, hundreds of billions a year would be a great incentive to move operations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, one zero too many.  I plead guilty to being mathmactically dyslexic.
> 
> That said, stop and think for a minute: If a 0.5% per hedge fund transaction will raise billions, just how much revenue do hedge funds generate?
> 
> P.S. Hedge-fund speculation on subprime mortgage bundles was what caused the crash in '08.  Also, hedge funds are only a portion of the stock market.  You do understand that, right?
Click to expand...

*
That said, stop and think for a minute: If a 0.5% per hedge fund transaction will raise billions, just how much revenue do hedge funds generate?
*
Revenues? Just look at profits. Will they just give up hundreds of billions (a huge chunk of annual profit), just because a leftist moron thinks it's a good idea? LOL!

*P.S. Hedge-fund speculation on subprime mortgage bundles was what caused the crash in '08.
*
P.S. government pressure to lend to sub-prime borrowers is what caused the crisis.
*
Also, hedge funds are only a portion of the stock market.
*
It would hit shares you trade, it would hit your mutual funds that trade.
You understand that, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It is a tax on all stock trades. Higher costs for my mutual funds takes money away from my retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your broker is an idiot.  If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.  Kind of like when a retailer hides the sales tax in the cost of the widget you're buying.
Click to expand...


*If your broker is an idiot. If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.
*
LOL! That's funny.


----------



## Arianrhod

Penelope said:


> I never lived where state college was free, but yes college tuition has gone up so much, why, I know a teacher who got their degree online and by doing  testing and in-service at  a local school she lived by. Most brick and mortar colleges do more and more via internet.



And as more and more colleges are forced to accept open carry, eventually all higher education will move online.  But, yeah, when Sanders went to Brooklyn College (a city university), it was tuition-free, as were all the SUNY (state universities) colleges.

Uh-oh.  I see why so many people in this thread are have shitfits.  They're thinking: Bernie Sanders got a free education.  Sanders is the Antichrist (well, except for Hillary).  Down with free education!  J/k...maybe.  Because Hillary went to Yale.  No free education there.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Revenues? Just look at profits. Will they just give up hundreds of billions (a huge chunk of annual profit)?



Obviously the Sanders campaign has looked at the accounting.  Clearly you have, too.  Present it here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenues? Just look at profits. Will they just give up hundreds of billions (a huge chunk of annual profit)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the Sanders campaign has looked at the accounting.  Clearly you have, too.  Present it here.
Click to expand...


If his campaign thinks it will raises hundreds of billions, their accounting is wrong.


The Monstrous Idiocy Of The Robin Hood Tax Rears Its Ugly Head Again


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenues? Just look at profits. Will they just give up hundreds of billions (a huge chunk of annual profit)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the Sanders campaign has looked at the accounting.  Clearly you have, too.  Present it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If his campaign thinks it will raises hundreds of billions, their accounting is wrong.
> 
> 
> The Monstrous Idiocy Of The Robin Hood Tax Rears Its Ugly Head Again
Click to expand...

I love it when people let an op-ed tell them what to think.


----------



## Penelope

I remembered reading some college was free,

The era of free tuition ended, ironically, with the student movement of the 1960s, just as campuses were getting more populous, diverse, and democratic. Ronald Reagan made the University of California a major punching bag of his 1966 campaign for governor of California, with the encouragement of* FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, who saw campus peace activists as dangerous subversives. Upon taking office, Reagan managed to have UC president Clark Kerr fired—he had been the architect of mass higher education not just in California, but across the country—and hiked fees at the UC colleges to the approximate levels of tuition charged elsewhere.*

A similar story happened in New York. In the 1960s, blacks and Latinos made up less than one-fifth of all students at CUNY schools, and most were confined to a non-baccalaureate track. *The same colleges that had offered the city’s Jews and other immigrant groups important opportunities for advancement in the 1930s were frustrating the dreams of a new generation.*

In the spring of 1969, students at City College staged a campus takeover, hanging a banner that proclaimed the school that had once been known as the “Harvard of the poor” to be “Harlem University.” Student activism and community support led the state Board of Higher Education to vote swiftly to open CUNY admission for the first time to all city high school graduates. However, only a few years after the college was fully integrated, in 1976, CUNY’s board voted to impose tuition for the first time. It seemed that citizens could support free education, or open education, but not both.

Whatever Happened to When College Was Free?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenues? Just look at profits. Will they just give up hundreds of billions (a huge chunk of annual profit)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the Sanders campaign has looked at the accounting.  Clearly you have, too.  Present it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If his campaign thinks it will raises hundreds of billions, their accounting is wrong.
> 
> 
> The Monstrous Idiocy Of The Robin Hood Tax Rears Its Ugly Head Again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love it when people let an op-ed tell them what to think.
Click to expand...


But enough about you.
Sander's idea is stupid. It'll cost jobs and reduce tax revenues, not increase them by hundreds of billions.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sander's idea is stupid. It'll cost jobs and reduce tax revenues, not increase them by hundreds of billions.



Show your work.  Or is "because I said so" all you have?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sander's idea is stupid. It'll cost jobs and reduce tax revenues, not increase them by hundreds of billions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show your work.  Or is "because I said so" all you have?
Click to expand...


No net revenue will be raised by the specific proposals that have been put forward. This will sound strange to those who can see that there will indeed be revenue coming from the tax, but that is because while there will indeed be revenue from the tax itself there will also be falls in revenue from other taxes. The net effect of this is that there will be less revenue in total as a result of an FTT.
But of course, do not just take our word for it. That of the European Commission should be sufficient1:
‘With a tax rate of 0.1% the model shows drops in GDP (-1.76%) in the long-run. It should be noted that these strong results are related to the fact that the tax is cumulative and cascading which leads to rather strong economic reactions in the model.’ (Vol. 1 (Summary), p. 50)
Revenue estimates are as follows:
‘[A] stylised transaction tax on securities (STT), where it is assumed that all investment in the economy are financed with the help of securities (shares and bonds) at 0.1% is simulated to cause output losses (i.e. deviation of GDP from its longrun baseline level) of up to 1.76% in the long run, while yielding annual revenues of less than 0.1% of GDP.’ (Vol. 1 (Summary), p. 33)
A reasonable estimate of the marginal rate of taxation for EU countries is 40-50% of any increase in GDP. That is, that from all of the various taxes levied, 40-50% of any increase in GDP ends up as tax revenues to the respective governments. Thus if we have a fall of 1.76% in GDP we have a fall in tax revenues of 0.7-0.9% of GDP. The proposed FTT is a tax which collects 0.1% of GDP while other tax collections fall by 0.7-0.9% of GDP. It is very difficult indeed to describe this as an increase in tax revenue.
There are, however, bureaucratic reasons why the European Commission might still suggest such a tax move. The revenues from the FTT would be designated as the EU’s ‘own resources’, that is, money which comes to the centre to be spent as of right; not, as with the current system, money begrudgingly handed over by national governments. The EU bureaucracy therefore has a strong interest in promoting such a change. What’s in it for the rest of society is harder to spot.
This result is not unexpected. When the Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at the impacts of the UK’s own FTT, Stamp Duty upon shares2, they found much the same result – from the same cause too. Such a transactions tax upon securities lowers securities prices. This then makes the issuance of new securities more expensive for those wishing to raise capital. More expensive capital leads, inexorably, to less of it being used and thus less growth in the economy.
Please note that this is not some strange application of the Laffer Curve argument. It is not to say that lowering all taxes, or any tax, leads to such extra growth that revenues increase. Rather, it is derived from Diamond and Mirrlees (1971)3 that transactions taxes multiply then cascade through the economy. They are therefore best avoided if another method of achieving the same end is available. Indeed, they point out that taxation of intermediate inputs is to be avoided if possible – better by far to tax final consumption or some other final result of the economy. This very point is acknowledged in the way VAT is structured. Rather than a series of sales taxes which accumulate as one company sells to another along the production chain, there is a value added tax which amounts to one single rate at the point of final consumption.
That this point is recognised in a major part of our taxation system suggests that it might be wise to recognise it with regard to the FTT.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Financial Transaction Tax_0.pdf

If you see any flaws in Tim Worstall's work, by all means, please share.


----------



## Arianrhod

^Thank you.  I'll read through that at my leisure.  Interesting, though, that a Brit knows more about U.S. financial markets than most Americans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> ^Thank you.  I'll read through that at my leisure.  Interesting, though, that a Brit knows more about U.S. financial markets than most Americans.



If there weren't so many ignorant Americans, Sanders wouldn't be doing as well. Hillary either.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^Thank you.  I'll read through that at my leisure.  Interesting, though, that a Brit knows more about U.S. financial markets than most Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there weren't so many ignorant Americans, Sanders wouldn't be doing as well. Hillary either.
Click to expand...


So which of the People with No Political Experience has won your heart?

The multiple bankrupt?
The Young Earther preparing us for the "End Times"?
Or the one who treated herself to a hefty severance package after running HP into the ground?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^Thank you.  I'll read through that at my leisure.  Interesting, though, that a Brit knows more about U.S. financial markets than most Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there weren't so many ignorant Americans, Sanders wouldn't be doing as well. Hillary either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which of the People with No Political Experience has won your heart?
> 
> The multiple bankrupt?
> The Young Earther preparing us for the "End Times"?
> Or the one who treated herself to a hefty severance package after running HP into the ground?
Click to expand...


I like Cruz.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^Thank you.  I'll read through that at my leisure.  Interesting, though, that a Brit knows more about U.S. financial markets than most Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there weren't so many ignorant Americans, Sanders wouldn't be doing as well. Hillary either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which of the People with No Political Experience has won your heart?
> 
> The multiple bankrupt?
> The Young Earther preparing us for the "End Times"?
> Or the one who treated herself to a hefty severance package after running HP into the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like Cruz.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe after the Big Three crash and burn his numbers will go up.  Even so, once the No-Experience triumvirate goes back to their Day Jobs, it'll probably be Jeb!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^Thank you.  I'll read through that at my leisure.  Interesting, though, that a Brit knows more about U.S. financial markets than most Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there weren't so many ignorant Americans, Sanders wouldn't be doing as well. Hillary either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which of the People with No Political Experience has won your heart?
> 
> The multiple bankrupt?
> The Young Earther preparing us for the "End Times"?
> Or the one who treated herself to a hefty severance package after running HP into the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like Cruz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, maybe after the Big Three crash and burn his numbers will go up.  Even so, once the No-Experience triumvirate goes back to their Day Jobs, it'll probably be Jeb!
Click to expand...


Jeb sucks.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^Thank you.  I'll read through that at my leisure.  Interesting, though, that a Brit knows more about U.S. financial markets than most Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there weren't so many ignorant Americans, Sanders wouldn't be doing as well. Hillary either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which of the People with No Political Experience has won your heart?
> 
> The multiple bankrupt?
> The Young Earther preparing us for the "End Times"?
> Or the one who treated herself to a hefty severance package after running HP into the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like Cruz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, maybe after the Big Three crash and burn his numbers will go up.  Even so, once the No-Experience triumvirate goes back to their Day Jobs, it'll probably be Jeb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeb sucks.
Click to expand...

No argument there.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there weren't so many ignorant Americans, Sanders wouldn't be doing as well. Hillary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which of the People with No Political Experience has won your heart?
> 
> The multiple bankrupt?
> The Young Earther preparing us for the "End Times"?
> Or the one who treated herself to a hefty severance package after running HP into the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like Cruz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, maybe after the Big Three crash and burn his numbers will go up.  Even so, once the No-Experience triumvirate goes back to their Day Jobs, it'll probably be Jeb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeb sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument there.
Click to expand...


He might even be worse than Sanders and Hillary. But it's close.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which of the People with No Political Experience has won your heart?
> 
> The multiple bankrupt?
> The Young Earther preparing us for the "End Times"?
> Or the one who treated herself to a hefty severance package after running HP into the ground?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like Cruz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, maybe after the Big Three crash and burn his numbers will go up.  Even so, once the No-Experience triumvirate goes back to their Day Jobs, it'll probably be Jeb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeb sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He might even be worse than Sanders and Hillary. But it's close.
Click to expand...

My gut feeling is that once the dust settles, he'll be the last one on the GOP's island.  My condolences.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like Cruz.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe after the Big Three crash and burn his numbers will go up.  Even so, once the No-Experience triumvirate goes back to their Day Jobs, it'll probably be Jeb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeb sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He might even be worse than Sanders and Hillary. But it's close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My gut feeling is that once the dust settles, he'll be the last one on the GOP's island.  My condolences.
Click to expand...


At least he's not a geriatric Commie.


----------



## HenryBHough

Go Bernie!

Free stuff for everybody!

Just print the money and hope people won't shift to barter.

But, then, you could always tax barter.....

Think colleges will keep accepting worthless paper money or might insist on "payment in kind"?  What, eggs?  produce?  baby parts?


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> At least he's not a geriatric Commie.



Yeah, Putin is 63.  Not geriatric necessarily, but all those shirtless photos are of a man trying waaaay too hard.  The Right needs to get over its infatuation with him.



HenryBHough said:


> Free stuff for everybody!



It's not "free stuff."

But keep telling yourself that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least he's not a geriatric Commie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Putin is 63.  Not geriatric necessarily, but all those shirtless photos are of a man trying waaaay too hard.  The Right needs to get over its infatuation with him.
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free stuff for everybody!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "free stuff."
> 
> But keep telling yourself that.
Click to expand...


I don't like strongman Commies, like Putin, or weak man Commies, like Obama.
And the Commies who just want to give away Trillions more to buy votes, like Sanders, Warren and Clinton suck too.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least he's not a geriatric Commie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Putin is 63.  Not geriatric necessarily, but all those shirtless photos are of a man trying waaaay too hard.  The Right needs to get over its infatuation with him.
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free stuff for everybody!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "free stuff."
> 
> But keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't like strongman Commies, like Putin, or weak man Commies, like Obama.
> And the Commies who just want to give away Trillions more to buy votes, like Sanders, Warren and Clinton suck too.
Click to expand...

So "commie" is code for "everyone who doesn't think like me."

This was a really good discussion up to now...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least he's not a geriatric Commie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Putin is 63.  Not geriatric necessarily, but all those shirtless photos are of a man trying waaaay too hard.  The Right needs to get over its infatuation with him.
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free stuff for everybody!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "free stuff."
> 
> But keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't like strongman Commies, like Putin, or weak man Commies, like Obama.
> And the Commies who just want to give away Trillions more to buy votes, like Sanders, Warren and Clinton suck too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So "commie" is code for "everyone who doesn't think like me."
> 
> This was a really good discussion up to now...
Click to expand...


No, Commie is code for assclowns like Sanders who want to add $18 trillion in new spending over the next decade.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least he's not a geriatric Commie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Putin is 63.  Not geriatric necessarily, but all those shirtless photos are of a man trying waaaay too hard.  The Right needs to get over its infatuation with him.
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free stuff for everybody!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "free stuff."
> 
> But keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't like strongman Commies, like Putin, or weak man Commies, like Obama.
> And the Commies who just want to give away Trillions more to buy votes, like Sanders, Warren and Clinton suck too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So "commie" is code for "everyone who doesn't think like me."
> 
> This was a really good discussion up to now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Commie is code for assclowns like Sanders who want to add $18 trillion in new spending over the next decade.
Click to expand...

That WSJ article has been debunked.  

But I can see why your side is so reluctant to allow more kids to go to college.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least he's not a geriatric Commie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Putin is 63.  Not geriatric necessarily, but all those shirtless photos are of a man trying waaaay too hard.  The Right needs to get over its infatuation with him.
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free stuff for everybody!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "free stuff."
> 
> But keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't like strongman Commies, like Putin, or weak man Commies, like Obama.
> And the Commies who just want to give away Trillions more to buy votes, like Sanders, Warren and Clinton suck too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So "commie" is code for "everyone who doesn't think like me."
> 
> This was a really good discussion up to now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Commie is code for assclowns like Sanders who want to add $18 trillion in new spending over the next decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That WSJ article has been debunked.
> 
> But I can see why your side is so reluctant to allow more kids to go to college.
Click to expand...


If Sanders wants to make college free, just mandate zero tuition.
I'm sure they'll be happy to work for free.

Why is my side, "so reluctant to allow more kids to go to college"?

If you have a link to a debunking, perhaps you'll share?


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If Sanders wants to make college free, just mandate zero tuition.



That's something Putin would do.  Apparently you approve of communism when it's implemented in your name.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm sure they'll be happy to work for free.



As I'm sure you would. 




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why is my side, "so reluctant to allow more kids to go to college"?



Because educated people are less likely to post drivel like the above.  And they'd compete with "why don't we just mandate free college tuition" types for jobs, and then were would you be? 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you have a link to a debunking, perhaps you'll share?



Do you consider Business Insider a reputable source?

Bernie Sanders: My proposals don't cost $18 trillion - Business Insider

The WSJ either can't count or deliberately misinterpreted the data.

The more I read nonsense like your last post, the more I'm inclined to believe the former.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sanders wants to make college free, just mandate zero tuition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's something Putin would do.  Apparently you approve of communism when it's implemented in your name.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll be happy to work for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I'm sure you would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is my side, "so reluctant to allow more kids to go to college"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because educated people are less likely to post drivel like the above.  And they'd compete with "why don't we just mandate free college tuition" types for jobs, and then were would you be?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a link to a debunking, perhaps you'll share?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider Business Insider a reputable source?
> 
> Bernie Sanders: My proposals don't cost $18 trillion - Business Insider
> 
> The WSJ either can't count or deliberately misinterpreted the data.
> 
> The more I read nonsense like your last post, the more I'm inclined to believe the former.
Click to expand...


*That's something Putin would do. Apparently you approve of communism when it's implemented in your name.*

Communism? Why do you hate kids who can't afford college?
*
Because educated people are less likely to post drivel like the above.*

Bullshit. Look at Hillary and Warren. Very educated, more drivel than anybody.

*Do you consider Business Insider a reputable source?*

Well, Henry Blodget is a liberal tool douchebag, but I'll check your link. Thanks.


----------



## williepete

Anyone smart enough to excel in college will win a scholarship or figure out a way to pay for it. (Like I did). Spending tax money to send dolts to left wing propaganda camps is a waste of resources. We already have enough French History majors slinging hash at the local diner. Since the Department of Education was established, the federal government has thrown fortunes at a broken system with the only result being less educated waiters and waitresses.

To anyone hyping the idea of throwing more billions down the rat hole of the American (un)education system, I'd ask, "Have you talked to a recent college grad these days?" I do regularly. What they don't know is stunning. It makes sense why Dims want more of these confused adult children wandering around. They're easy to herd and control.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sanders wants to make college free, just mandate zero tuition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's something Putin would do.  Apparently you approve of communism when it's implemented in your name.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll be happy to work for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I'm sure you would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is my side, "so reluctant to allow more kids to go to college"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because educated people are less likely to post drivel like the above.  And they'd compete with "why don't we just mandate free college tuition" types for jobs, and then were would you be?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a link to a debunking, perhaps you'll share?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider Business Insider a reputable source?
> 
> Bernie Sanders: My proposals don't cost $18 trillion - Business Insider
> 
> The WSJ either can't count or deliberately misinterpreted the data.
> 
> The more I read nonsense like your last post, the more I'm inclined to believe the former.
Click to expand...

*
He argued that the paper did not take into account the spending reductions that would come with the enactment of a single-payer-type healthcare plan.
*
Hilarious! When has more government control ever led to spending reductions?
*
"They significantly exaggerated the cost of that, and they forgot to tell the American people in that article that that means eliminating the costs that you incur with private health insurance."
*
Sure, we'll add those savings to Obama's $2500 savings per family per year on Obamacare. LOL!

Thanks for the link. Do you have one that actually debunks the WSJ?


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sanders wants to make college free, just mandate zero tuition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's something Putin would do.  Apparently you approve of communism when it's implemented in your name.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll be happy to work for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I'm sure you would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is my side, "so reluctant to allow more kids to go to college"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because educated people are less likely to post drivel like the above.  And they'd compete with "why don't we just mandate free college tuition" types for jobs, and then were would you be?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a link to a debunking, perhaps you'll share?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider Business Insider a reputable source?
> 
> Bernie Sanders: My proposals don't cost $18 trillion - Business Insider
> 
> The WSJ either can't count or deliberately misinterpreted the data.
> 
> The more I read nonsense like your last post, the more I'm inclined to believe the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> He argued that the paper did not take into account the spending reductions that would come with the enactment of a single-payer-type healthcare plan.
> *
> Hilarious! When has more government control ever led to spending reductions?
> *
> "They significantly exaggerated the cost of that, and they forgot to tell the American people in that article that that means eliminating the costs that you incur with private health insurance."
> *
> Sure, we'll add those savings to Obama's $2500 savings per family per year on Obamacare. LOL!
> 
> Thanks for the link. Do you have one that actually debunks the WSJ?
Click to expand...


So now you're playing the "all politicians are liars" card.  Good luck with Ted Cruz.  You'll need it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sanders wants to make college free, just mandate zero tuition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's something Putin would do.  Apparently you approve of communism when it's implemented in your name.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll be happy to work for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I'm sure you would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is my side, "so reluctant to allow more kids to go to college"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because educated people are less likely to post drivel like the above.  And they'd compete with "why don't we just mandate free college tuition" types for jobs, and then were would you be?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a link to a debunking, perhaps you'll share?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider Business Insider a reputable source?
> 
> Bernie Sanders: My proposals don't cost $18 trillion - Business Insider
> 
> The WSJ either can't count or deliberately misinterpreted the data.
> 
> The more I read nonsense like your last post, the more I'm inclined to believe the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> He argued that the paper did not take into account the spending reductions that would come with the enactment of a single-payer-type healthcare plan.
> *
> Hilarious! When has more government control ever led to spending reductions?
> *
> "They significantly exaggerated the cost of that, and they forgot to tell the American people in that article that that means eliminating the costs that you incur with private health insurance."
> *
> Sure, we'll add those savings to Obama's $2500 savings per family per year on Obamacare. LOL!
> 
> Thanks for the link. Do you have one that actually debunks the WSJ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're playing the "all politicians are liars" card.  Good luck with Ted Cruz.  You'll need it.
Click to expand...


No, I'm playing the "Politicians who say government control of anything will save money" are liars or idiots or both.


----------



## williepete

I'm always cautious when listening to people who demand "free" things. They remind me of children. When Dims demand something, like children, they don't understand that someone else who earned it has to supply it. It's a very childish characteristic. Just what this country needs at the Obama crossroad of bankruptcy and division.

What could go wrong after the inevitable collapse? Obama teed this country up. The Dims are pulling their 2 wood out of the bag.  


_Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard._
_-H.L. Mencken_


----------



## LoneLaugher

Most nutbags are barely making a living and all they can do is bitch about how those of us with decent incomes may have to pay a few bucks more in order to live in a nation where everyone is more highly educated.


----------



## ScienceRocks

This is great news! We should educate our children and do away with h1b's!!!! This would make this country a far stronger and capable nation.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Lol, 

It is called investment in our own people. You people that think we can bring in millions of h1b's to do our jobs are the sick ones.


Sanders is doing something for Americans.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Penelope said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^Good on Tennessee!  Only for two-year colleges (the Sanders proposal is for four-year state colleges), but it's a start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ca use to , not sure if they do anymore. I think not due to money shortage.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's like we can't afford to give people whatever they want, or something.


----------



## Conservative65

Matthew said:


> Lol,
> 
> It is called investment in our own people. You people that think we can bring in millions of h1b's to do our jobs are the sick ones.
> 
> 
> Sanders is doing something for Americans.



It's called some of us being forced to invest in kids that their own parents won't invest in. How about their parents do the investing if it's that good of an idea?


----------



## Conservative65

williepete said:


> Anyone smart enough to excel in college will win a scholarship or figure out a way to pay for it. (Like I did). Spending tax money to send dolts to left wing propaganda camps is a waste of resources. We already have enough French History majors slinging hash at the local diner. Since the Department of Education was established, the federal government has thrown fortunes at a broken system with the only result being less educated waiters and waitresses.
> 
> To anyone hyping the idea of throwing more billions down the rat hole of the American (un)education system, I'd ask, "Have you talked to a recent college grad these days?" I do regularly. What they don't know is stunning. It makes sense why Dims want more of these confused adult children wandering around. They're easy to herd and control.



My daughter started college in August.  As you said, those smart enough to excel in college will get scholarships.  She received over $28,000 for each of her 4 years.  While that doesn't cover it all as the total per year where she attends is $34,000, I am investing in her with the remaining balance.  I'm glad to do it.  

I know you understand this but to those who don't, all of her scholarships are academic and you don't get them by sitting on your ass demanding someone else invest in your future.


----------



## Conservative65

LoneLaugher said:


> Most nutbags are barely making a living and all they can do is bitch about how those of us with decent incomes may have to pay a few bucks more in order to live in a nation where everyone is more highly educated.



How about the parents of these kids you think I should pay more in taxes to educate invest in their own kids?


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least he's not a geriatric Commie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Putin is 63.  Not geriatric necessarily, but all those shirtless photos are of a man trying waaaay too hard.  The Right needs to get over its infatuation with him.
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free stuff for everybody!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "free stuff."
> 
> But keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't like strongman Commies, like Putin, or weak man Commies, like Obama.
> And the Commies who just want to give away Trillions more to buy votes, like Sanders, Warren and Clinton suck too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So "commie" is code for "everyone who doesn't think like me."
> 
> This was a really good discussion up to now...
Click to expand...


It DESCRIBES people who, when a group wants something, goes about forcing another group they think has too much money to fund it for that first group.  No one is owed a college education.  Commies describes anyone who, when faced with a problem, looks to the government as the first, last, and only way to do something.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you all love that. How easy is it for these SNAKES to give away things like free college for all when it's NOT their money paying for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1) It's free tuition at STATE colleges
> (2) Are you a hedge fund manager?
Click to expand...


It's not free you damn moron.  Someone has to fund it and it should be those attending.  If they can't, too bad.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Conservative65 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most nutbags are barely making a living and all they can do is bitch about how those of us with decent incomes may have to pay a few bucks more in order to live in a nation where everyone is more highly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the parents of these kids you think I should pay more in taxes to educate invest in their own kids?
Click to expand...


Yes, dummy. I think education is an investment in this nation. One that pays dividends that go beyond your EZ 1040. If nutbags could think big picture......they'd be able to see how a populace of highly educated people is preferable..................for the health of the nation. 

Those kids who WE help educate will be taxpayers. It all comes back in time. Give some real thought to the matter for a change.


----------



## Geaux4it

LoneLaugher said:


> Most nutbags are barely making a living and all they can do is bitch about how those of us with decent incomes may have to pay a few bucks more in order to live in a nation where everyone is more highly educated.



I already pay to much taxes

no more

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher

Conservative65 said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone smart enough to excel in college will win a scholarship or figure out a way to pay for it. (Like I did). Spending tax money to send dolts to left wing propaganda camps is a waste of resources. We already have enough French History majors slinging hash at the local diner. Since the Department of Education was established, the federal government has thrown fortunes at a broken system with the only result being less educated waiters and waitresses.
> 
> To anyone hyping the idea of throwing more billions down the rat hole of the American (un)education system, I'd ask, "Have you talked to a recent college grad these days?" I do regularly. What they don't know is stunning. It makes sense why Dims want more of these confused adult children wandering around. They're easy to herd and control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter started college in August.  As you said, those smart enough to excel in college will get scholarships.  She received over $28,000 for each of her 4 years.  While that doesn't cover it all as the total per year where she attends is $34,000, I am investing in her with the remaining balance.  I'm glad to do it.
> 
> I know you understand this but to those who don't, all of her scholarships are academic and you don't get them by sitting on your ass demanding someone else invest in your future.
Click to expand...


Where do the scholarships come from? Do you know?


----------



## LoneLaugher

Geaux4it said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most nutbags are barely making a living and all they can do is bitch about how those of us with decent incomes may have to pay a few bucks more in order to live in a nation where everyone is more highly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already pay to much taxes
> 
> no more
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


No you don't.


----------



## Conservative65

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most nutbags are barely making a living and all they can do is bitch about how those of us with decent incomes may have to pay a few bucks more in order to live in a nation where everyone is more highly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the parents of these kids you think I should pay more in taxes to educate invest in their own kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, dummy. I think education is an investment in this nation. One that pays dividends that go beyond your EZ 1040. If nutbags could think big picture......they'd be able to see how a populace of highly educated people is preferable..................for the health of the nation.
> 
> Those kids who WE help educate will be taxpayers. It all comes back in time. Give some real thought to the matter for a change.
Click to expand...


If it's as good of an investment as you think, why aren't the parents of the kids you want to provide an education investing in their own?  You seem to be missing the part that if it's not a good enough one for them, it's not a good enough one for those of us who aren't their parents.  

If you think it's such a good investment, find someone whose parents are so low they won't invest in their own and pay their tuition.  I invest in MINE.  If other parents don't think their kids are good enough to invest in, neither should I.


----------



## Conservative65

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone smart enough to excel in college will win a scholarship or figure out a way to pay for it. (Like I did). Spending tax money to send dolts to left wing propaganda camps is a waste of resources. We already have enough French History majors slinging hash at the local diner. Since the Department of Education was established, the federal government has thrown fortunes at a broken system with the only result being less educated waiters and waitresses.
> 
> To anyone hyping the idea of throwing more billions down the rat hole of the American (un)education system, I'd ask, "Have you talked to a recent college grad these days?" I do regularly. What they don't know is stunning. It makes sense why Dims want more of these confused adult children wandering around. They're easy to herd and control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter started college in August.  As you said, those smart enough to excel in college will get scholarships.  She received over $28,000 for each of her 4 years.  While that doesn't cover it all as the total per year where she attends is $34,000, I am investing in her with the remaining balance.  I'm glad to do it.
> 
> I know you understand this but to those who don't, all of her scholarships are academic and you don't get them by sitting on your ass demanding someone else invest in your future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do the scholarships come from? Do you know?
Click to expand...


She attends a PRIVATE university where what she received was from private funding.  Next implication.  Not everyone is like you and expects the government to fund for them.


----------



## Conservative65

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most nutbags are barely making a living and all they can do is bitch about how those of us with decent incomes may have to pay a few bucks more in order to live in a nation where everyone is more highly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already pay to much taxes
> 
> no more
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't.
Click to expand...


How do you know you arrogant piece of shit?


----------



## Geaux4it

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most nutbags are barely making a living and all they can do is bitch about how those of us with decent incomes may have to pay a few bucks more in order to live in a nation where everyone is more highly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already pay to much taxes
> 
> no more
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't.
Click to expand...


Even with the write-offs, I pay to much

And not another dime should go to stupid liberal programs

They have my money its up to them to decide what to do with what they have

Just like me

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most nutbags are barely making a living and all they can do is bitch about how those of us with decent incomes may have to pay a few bucks more in order to live in a nation where everyone is more highly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already pay to much taxes
> 
> no more
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't.
Click to expand...


Really, how much is enough? How much of a dollar should go the the Feds in your mind?

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher

Conservative65 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone smart enough to excel in college will win a scholarship or figure out a way to pay for it. (Like I did). Spending tax money to send dolts to left wing propaganda camps is a waste of resources. We already have enough French History majors slinging hash at the local diner. Since the Department of Education was established, the federal government has thrown fortunes at a broken system with the only result being less educated waiters and waitresses.
> 
> To anyone hyping the idea of throwing more billions down the rat hole of the American (un)education system, I'd ask, "Have you talked to a recent college grad these days?" I do regularly. What they don't know is stunning. It makes sense why Dims want more of these confused adult children wandering around. They're easy to herd and control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter started college in August.  As you said, those smart enough to excel in college will get scholarships.  She received over $28,000 for each of her 4 years.  While that doesn't cover it all as the total per year where she attends is $34,000, I am investing in her with the remaining balance.  I'm glad to do it.
> 
> I know you understand this but to those who don't, all of her scholarships are academic and you don't get them by sitting on your ass demanding someone else invest in your future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do the scholarships come from? Do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She attends a PRIVATE university where what she received was from private funding.  Next implication.  Not everyone is like you and expects the government to fund for them.
Click to expand...


You don't know, then. Just as I expected.


----------



## Geaux4it

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone smart enough to excel in college will win a scholarship or figure out a way to pay for it. (Like I did). Spending tax money to send dolts to left wing propaganda camps is a waste of resources. We already have enough French History majors slinging hash at the local diner. Since the Department of Education was established, the federal government has thrown fortunes at a broken system with the only result being less educated waiters and waitresses.
> 
> To anyone hyping the idea of throwing more billions down the rat hole of the American (un)education system, I'd ask, "Have you talked to a recent college grad these days?" I do regularly. What they don't know is stunning. It makes sense why Dims want more of these confused adult children wandering around. They're easy to herd and control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter started college in August.  As you said, those smart enough to excel in college will get scholarships.  She received over $28,000 for each of her 4 years.  While that doesn't cover it all as the total per year where she attends is $34,000, I am investing in her with the remaining balance.  I'm glad to do it.
> 
> I know you understand this but to those who don't, all of her scholarships are academic and you don't get them by sitting on your ass demanding someone else invest in your future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do the scholarships come from? Do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She attends a PRIVATE university where what she received was from private funding.  Next implication.  Not everyone is like you and expects the government to fund for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know, then. Just as I expected.
Click to expand...

Yep, when someone can't carry their own water they expect someone else to.

I bet liberals are the biggest litter bugs out there for the same reason above

-Geaux


----------



## Stephanie

I wonder if he plans on giving everyone a refund who paid for their own college education if he gets his way when he becomes king of everything FREE?

That would be only fair right?

He better be raising them taxes on everyone to about 80%.  so that government can take care of you from cradle to grave.


----------



## Stephanie

snip:
*Danes Rethink a Welfare State Ample to a Fault*
By SUZANNE DALEYAPRIL 20, 2013




COPENHAGEN — It began as a stunt intended to prove that hardship and poverty still existed in this small, wealthy country, but it backfired badly. Visit a single mother of two on welfare, a liberal member of Parliament goaded a skeptical political opponent, see for yourself how hard it is.

Denmark has been at work overhauling entitlements, trying to prod Danes into working more or longer or both. While much of southern Europe has been racked by strikes and protests as its creditors force austerity measures, Denmark still has a coveted AAA bond rating.

*But Denmark’s long-term outlook is troubling. The population is aging, and in many regions of the country people without jobs now outnumber those with them.
Some of that is a result of a depressed economy. But many experts say a more basic problem is the proportion of Danes who are not participating in the work force at all — be they dawdling university students, young pensioners or welfare recipients like Carina who lean on hefty government support.*

“Before the crisis there was a sense that there was always going to be more and more,” Bjarke Moller, the editor in chief of publications for Mandag Morgen, a research group in Copenhagen. “But that is not true anymore. There are a lot of pressures on us right now. We need to be an agile society to survive.”


“In the past, people never asked for help unless they needed it,” said Karen Haekkerup, the minister of social affairs and integration, who has been outspoken on the subject. “My grandmother was offered a pension and she was offended. She did not need it.

*“But now people do not have that mentality. They think of these benefits as their rights. The rights have just expanded and expanded. And it has brought us a good quality of life. But now we need to go back to the rights and the duties. We all have to contribute.”*

In 2012, a little over 2.6 million people between the ages of 15 and 64 were working in Denmark, 47 percent of the total population and 73 percent of the 15- to 64-year-olds.

While only about 65 percent of working age adults are employed in the United States, comparisons are misleading, since many Danes work short hours and all enjoy perks like long vacations and lengthy paid maternity leaves, not to speak of a de facto minimum wage approaching $20 an hour. Danes would rank much lower in terms of hours worked per year.

In addition, the work force has far more older people to support. About 18 percent of Denmark’s population is over 65, compared with 13 percent in the United States.

all of it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/w...nk-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?_r=1


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Penelope said:


> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.



And if it passes he promised tod rop out of his phoney run for President?


----------



## Conservative65

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone smart enough to excel in college will win a scholarship or figure out a way to pay for it. (Like I did). Spending tax money to send dolts to left wing propaganda camps is a waste of resources. We already have enough French History majors slinging hash at the local diner. Since the Department of Education was established, the federal government has thrown fortunes at a broken system with the only result being less educated waiters and waitresses.
> 
> To anyone hyping the idea of throwing more billions down the rat hole of the American (un)education system, I'd ask, "Have you talked to a recent college grad these days?" I do regularly. What they don't know is stunning. It makes sense why Dims want more of these confused adult children wandering around. They're easy to herd and control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter started college in August.  As you said, those smart enough to excel in college will get scholarships.  She received over $28,000 for each of her 4 years.  While that doesn't cover it all as the total per year where she attends is $34,000, I am investing in her with the remaining balance.  I'm glad to do it.
> 
> I know you understand this but to those who don't, all of her scholarships are academic and you don't get them by sitting on your ass demanding someone else invest in your future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do the scholarships come from? Do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She attends a PRIVATE university where what she received was from private funding.  Next implication.  Not everyone is like you and expects the government to fund for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know, then. Just as I expected.
Click to expand...


What does what "she received was from private funding" do you not get dumbass?     Just as I expected, when the implication you made that taxpayers funded them is wrong, you play stupid.


----------



## Stephanie

this would be your life under the Taxpayer funded /Government controlled welfare country.
Lawmakers tell Detroit - No welfare if your kids are truant from school
With Half of the Students Chronically Absent, New Truancy Law Would Strip Welfare From Families

 and they tried to tell people in Ny,  I think it was, what SIZE soda cups they needed to drink from so they didn't GET FAT.  because they are in control of your, ObamaNoCare


----------



## LoneLaugher

Geaux4it said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most nutbags are barely making a living and all they can do is bitch about how those of us with decent incomes may have to pay a few bucks more in order to live in a nation where everyone is more highly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already pay to much taxes
> 
> no more
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, how much is enough? How much of a dollar should go the the Feds in your mind?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...




Conservative65 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone smart enough to excel in college will win a scholarship or figure out a way to pay for it. (Like I did). Spending tax money to send dolts to left wing propaganda camps is a waste of resources. We already have enough French History majors slinging hash at the local diner. Since the Department of Education was established, the federal government has thrown fortunes at a broken system with the only result being less educated waiters and waitresses.
> 
> To anyone hyping the idea of throwing more billions down the rat hole of the American (un)education system, I'd ask, "Have you talked to a recent college grad these days?" I do regularly. What they don't know is stunning. It makes sense why Dims want more of these confused adult children wandering around. They're easy to herd and control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter started college in August.  As you said, those smart enough to excel in college will get scholarships.  She received over $28,000 for each of her 4 years.  While that doesn't cover it all as the total per year where she attends is $34,000, I am investing in her with the remaining balance.  I'm glad to do it.
> 
> I know you understand this but to those who don't, all of her scholarships are academic and you don't get them by sitting on your ass demanding someone else invest in your future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do the scholarships come from? Do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She attends a PRIVATE university where what she received was from private funding.  Next implication.  Not everyone is like you and expects the government to fund for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know, then. Just as I expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does what "she received was from private funding" do you not get dumbass?     Just as I expected, when the implication you made that taxpayers funded them is wrong, you play stupid.
Click to expand...


Why did people donate to the endowment of your daughters college?


----------



## Conservative65

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most nutbags are barely making a living and all they can do is bitch about how those of us with decent incomes may have to pay a few bucks more in order to live in a nation where everyone is more highly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already pay to much taxes
> 
> no more
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, how much is enough? How much of a dollar should go the the Feds in your mind?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter started college in August.  As you said, those smart enough to excel in college will get scholarships.  She received over $28,000 for each of her 4 years.  While that doesn't cover it all as the total per year where she attends is $34,000, I am investing in her with the remaining balance.  I'm glad to do it.
> 
> I know you understand this but to those who don't, all of her scholarships are academic and you don't get them by sitting on your ass demanding someone else invest in your future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do the scholarships come from? Do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She attends a PRIVATE university where what she received was from private funding.  Next implication.  Not everyone is like you and expects the government to fund for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know, then. Just as I expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does what "she received was from private funding" do you not get dumbass?     Just as I expected, when the implication you made that taxpayers funded them is wrong, you play stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did people donate to the endowment of your daughters college?
Click to expand...


Ask them.     Since the university is over 100 years old and these scholarships have been around for a long time, I'm sure they're dead now.


----------



## williepete

So you've got a kid whose own family doesn't think enough of him to send him to college. A family, church and/or community who don't think he's worth raising money to get him a higher education. A kid who didn't work hard enough to earn the grades for a scholarship. A kid who won't work his way through school. A kid who won't join the military to take advantage of excellent education benefits.  

You want to take money from hard working Americans or borrow money from the Chinese for that kid?

Yeah. Makes perfect sense. Go with that.


----------



## Conservative65

williepete said:


> So you've got a kid whose own family doesn't think enough of him to send him to college. A family, church and/or community who don't think he's worth raising money to get him a higher education. A kid who didn't work hard enough to earn the grades for a scholarship. A kid who won't work his way through school. A kid who won't join the military to take advantage of excellent education benefits.
> 
> You want to take money from hard working Americans or borrow money from the Chinese for that kid?
> 
> Yeah. Makes perfect sense. Go with that.




Exactly.  Those who support this call it an investment.   If it's such a good investment, why aren't the parents of those kids doing the investing themselves instead of those of us who aren't their parents being forced to do it.  Those that support say it will provide a return.  What guarantee do we have it will do what they say?  What happens to those for whom the investment was made that don't succeed in graduating in order that what those who support it say it will produce will occur?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Conservative65 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
Click to expand...


I knew a farmer's daughter from Iowa. Officially her father earned nothing. Unofficially he was rich. She got her tuition paid for by the state. It already happens. But only to those who know how to fiddle the books. Farmers, they usually vote Republican right?


----------



## Conservative65

frigidweirdo said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew a farmer's daughter from Iowa. Officially her father earned nothing. Unofficially he was rich. She got her tuition paid for by the state. It already happens. But only to those who know how to fiddle the books. Farmers, they usually vote Republican right?
Click to expand...


Once upon a time?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Conservative65 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew a farmer's daughter from Iowa. Officially her father earned nothing. Unofficially he was rich. She got her tuition paid for by the state. It already happens. But only to those who know how to fiddle the books. Farmers, they usually vote Republican right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once upon a time?
Click to expand...


At first I was afraid, I was petrified?


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
Click to expand...


Taxpayers being required to fund something someone's own parents won't do is.


----------



## Conservative65

frigidweirdo said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew a farmer's daughter from Iowa. Officially her father earned nothing. Unofficially he was rich. She got her tuition paid for by the state. It already happens. But only to those who know how to fiddle the books. Farmers, they usually vote Republican right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once upon a time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At first I was afraid, I was petrified?
Click to expand...


I'm not afraid or petrified to fund my own kid's college.  That is, what EARNED ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIPS didn't provide.  Seems those you expect taxpayers to support doing for their kids what they won't do are afraid to do so themselves.


----------



## Conservative65

Stephanie said:


> Don't you all love that. How easy is it for these SNAKES to give away things like free college for all when it's NOT their money paying for it.
> 
> here's the kicker from the snake:*the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> what he means is. YOU THE TAXPAYER and (your families would go with LESS because of it) would be Responsible
> 
> that old coot has been in Congress sucking a living off us taxpayers for how many gawddam years and he NOW decides to present some bill that will suck the life out of us Taxpayers and their families. just for the VOTES
> 
> wake up people*



What it means is taxpayers would be responsible for funding for someone else's kids what their own parents aren't doing.


----------



## 007

Stephanie said:


> Don't you all love that. How easy is it for these SNAKES to give away things like free college for all when it's NOT their money paying for it.
> 
> here's the kicker from the snake:*the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> what he means is. YOU THE TAXPAYER and (your families would go with LESS because of it) would be Responsible
> 
> that old coot has been in Congress sucking a living off us taxpayers for how many gawddam years and he NOW decides to present some bill that will suck the life out of us Taxpayers and their families. just for the VOTES
> 
> wake up people*


(Inside the leftard brain... )

*YAAAAAAYY.... SANTA CLAUS IS COMING... YAAAAAAYY... MORE FREE STUFF..!!*


----------



## ClosedCaption

Arianrhod said:


> Apparently some people see the word "tax" and their brains shut down.
> 
> Here's a one-page summary of the proposal:
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file
> 
> Let me quote the only part that's apparently of concern (no one here has college-age kids?):
> 
> *Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.*
> This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
> s, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee
> on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could
> raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges
> and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the
> middle class of this country.
> 
> I'll be happy to break it down further if anyone's interested but, bottom line, unless you're a hedge fund manager (and a bad one), you've got nothing to worry about.




Thanks for this.  Waaaay more helpful than the smarties who just say "who pays?  SOMEONE PAYS!"


----------



## ClosedCaption

Conservative65 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew a farmer's daughter from Iowa. Officially her father earned nothing. Unofficially he was rich. She got her tuition paid for by the state. It already happens. But only to those who know how to fiddle the books. Farmers, they usually vote Republican right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once upon a time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At first I was afraid, I was petrified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid or petrified to fund my own kid's college.  That is, what EARNED ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIPS didn't provide.  Seems those you expect taxpayers to support doing for their kids what they won't do are afraid to do so themselves.
Click to expand...



If you dropped all the accusations and character profiles from your arguments it would sound the way it really is.  Selfish.

Lets do it again minus the feelings:  I will fund my own kids college.  That is, what ACADEMC SCHOLARSHIPS didnt provide. 

The last sentence is so full of shit its impossible to remove the feelings and negative characteristics in it to leave a complete sentence.


----------



## Penelope

I think the big issue here is here that only the wealthy kids go to Ivy League schools because of Mommy and Daddy, it use to be much easier to work yourself into college and a good paying career, today its not, no ifs , ands or buts about it.

The poor join gangs are out working to help support their mother due to DEAD BEAT DADS, who probably gave up and became drunks.

Most of the time there is not a thing wrong with these young kids except for environment. They are often as or more intelligent if given the chance of those who ride the tails of their parents shoe strings.

Today  is bad, only the weathy in this USA has their wealth grow, the rest of us middle roaders stay the same due to inflation or loose what we have due to an illness or job lay off due to machines who do not need health ins.

There is a huge gap, between the haves and have nots, and not all of it, most of it was not made by brains, but by who you are and who you know and your family name and by scamming, white collar crimes.


----------



## Conservative65

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew a farmer's daughter from Iowa. Officially her father earned nothing. Unofficially he was rich. She got her tuition paid for by the state. It already happens. But only to those who know how to fiddle the books. Farmers, they usually vote Republican right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once upon a time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At first I was afraid, I was petrified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid or petrified to fund my own kid's college.  That is, what EARNED ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIPS didn't provide.  Seems those you expect taxpayers to support doing for their kids what they won't do are afraid to do so themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you dropped all the accusations and character profiles from your arguments it would sound the way it really is.  Selfish.
> 
> Lets do it again minus the feelings:  I will fund my own kids college.  That is, what ACADEMC SCHOLARSHIPS didnt provide.
> 
> The last sentence is so full of shit its impossible to remove the feelings and negative characteristics in it to leave a complete sentence.
Click to expand...


Selfish is someone expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for themselves.  Since I don't expect anyone else to do anything other than what I do for my kids, it can't be selfish.

Those academic scholarships, all privately funded, didn't cover the entire $34,000/year cost.  I pay the difference.  Someone expecting taxpayers to fund their kids college is full of shit.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew a farmer's daughter from Iowa. Officially her father earned nothing. Unofficially he was rich. She got her tuition paid for by the state. It already happens. But only to those who know how to fiddle the books. Farmers, they usually vote Republican right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once upon a time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At first I was afraid, I was petrified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid or petrified to fund my own kid's college.  That is, what EARNED ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIPS didn't provide.  Seems those you expect taxpayers to support doing for their kids what they won't do are afraid to do so themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you dropped all the accusations and character profiles from your arguments it would sound the way it really is.  Selfish.
> 
> Lets do it again minus the feelings:  I will fund my own kids college.  That is, what ACADEMC SCHOLARSHIPS didnt provide.
> 
> The last sentence is so full of shit its impossible to remove the feelings and negative characteristics in it to leave a complete sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Selfish is someone *expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids* what *they won't fund* for themselves.  Since I don't *expect anyone else *to do anything other than what I do for my kids, it can't be selfish.
> 
> Those academic scholarships, all privately funded, didn't cover the entire $34,000/year cost.  I pay the difference.  Someone *expecting taxpayers* to fund their kids college is full of shit.
Click to expand...


See?  Thats when you're all out of debate.  When you use such emotional buzzwords.


----------



## Conservative65

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once upon a time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At first I was afraid, I was petrified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid or petrified to fund my own kid's college.  That is, what EARNED ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIPS didn't provide.  Seems those you expect taxpayers to support doing for their kids what they won't do are afraid to do so themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you dropped all the accusations and character profiles from your arguments it would sound the way it really is.  Selfish.
> 
> Lets do it again minus the feelings:  I will fund my own kids college.  That is, what ACADEMC SCHOLARSHIPS didnt provide.
> 
> The last sentence is so full of shit its impossible to remove the feelings and negative characteristics in it to leave a complete sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Selfish is someone *expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids* what *they won't fund* for themselves.  Since I don't *expect anyone else *to do anything other than what I do for my kids, it can't be selfish.
> 
> Those academic scholarships, all privately funded, didn't cover the entire $34,000/year cost.  I pay the difference.  Someone *expecting taxpayers* to fund their kids college is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Thats when you're all out of debate.  When you use such emotional buzzwords.
Click to expand...


There is nothing to debate.  You support a bunch of freeloading parents expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for their own.


----------



## jon_berzerk

working for a 90 percent federal tax 

--LOL


----------



## ClosedCaption

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At first I was afraid, I was petrified?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid or petrified to fund my own kid's college.  That is, what EARNED ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIPS didn't provide.  Seems those you expect taxpayers to support doing for their kids what they won't do are afraid to do so themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you dropped all the accusations and character profiles from your arguments it would sound the way it really is.  Selfish.
> 
> Lets do it again minus the feelings:  I will fund my own kids college.  That is, what ACADEMC SCHOLARSHIPS didnt provide.
> 
> The last sentence is so full of shit its impossible to remove the feelings and negative characteristics in it to leave a complete sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Selfish is someone *expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids* what *they won't fund* for themselves.  Since I don't *expect anyone else *to do anything other than what I do for my kids, it can't be selfish.
> 
> Those academic scholarships, all privately funded, didn't cover the entire $34,000/year cost.  I pay the difference.  Someone *expecting taxpayers* to fund their kids college is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Thats when you're all out of debate.  When you use such emotional buzzwords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to debate.  You support a bunch of freeloading parents expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for their own.
Click to expand...


Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.


----------



## Conservative65

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid or petrified to fund my own kid's college.  That is, what EARNED ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIPS didn't provide.  Seems those you expect taxpayers to support doing for their kids what they won't do are afraid to do so themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you dropped all the accusations and character profiles from your arguments it would sound the way it really is.  Selfish.
> 
> Lets do it again minus the feelings:  I will fund my own kids college.  That is, what ACADEMC SCHOLARSHIPS didnt provide.
> 
> The last sentence is so full of shit its impossible to remove the feelings and negative characteristics in it to leave a complete sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Selfish is someone *expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids* what *they won't fund* for themselves.  Since I don't *expect anyone else *to do anything other than what I do for my kids, it can't be selfish.
> 
> Those academic scholarships, all privately funded, didn't cover the entire $34,000/year cost.  I pay the difference.  Someone *expecting taxpayers* to fund their kids college is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Thats when you're all out of debate.  When you use such emotional buzzwords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to debate.  You support a bunch of freeloading parents expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.
Click to expand...


You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you dropped all the accusations and character profiles from your arguments it would sound the way it really is.  Selfish.
> 
> Lets do it again minus the feelings:  I will fund my own kids college.  That is, what ACADEMC SCHOLARSHIPS didnt provide.
> 
> The last sentence is so full of shit its impossible to remove the feelings and negative characteristics in it to leave a complete sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Selfish is someone *expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids* what *they won't fund* for themselves.  Since I don't *expect anyone else *to do anything other than what I do for my kids, it can't be selfish.
> 
> Those academic scholarships, all privately funded, didn't cover the entire $34,000/year cost.  I pay the difference.  Someone *expecting taxpayers* to fund their kids college is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Thats when you're all out of debate.  When you use such emotional buzzwords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to debate.  You support a bunch of freeloading parents expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
Click to expand...



not so in a communist utopia


----------



## ClosedCaption

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you dropped all the accusations and character profiles from your arguments it would sound the way it really is.  Selfish.
> 
> Lets do it again minus the feelings:  I will fund my own kids college.  That is, what ACADEMC SCHOLARSHIPS didnt provide.
> 
> The last sentence is so full of shit its impossible to remove the feelings and negative characteristics in it to leave a complete sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Selfish is someone *expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids* what *they won't fund* for themselves.  Since I don't *expect anyone else *to do anything other than what I do for my kids, it can't be selfish.
> 
> Those academic scholarships, all privately funded, didn't cover the entire $34,000/year cost.  I pay the difference.  Someone *expecting taxpayers* to fund their kids college is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Thats when you're all out of debate.  When you use such emotional buzzwords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to debate.  You support a bunch of freeloading parents expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about "should be instead".  I said it will not affect ANYONE unless they are HEDGE FUND MANAGERS.  So you pretending that you or I will be affected is a lie hiding behind false emotions.


----------



## Conservative65

jon_berzerk said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Selfish is someone *expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids* what *they won't fund* for themselves.  Since I don't *expect anyone else *to do anything other than what I do for my kids, it can't be selfish.
> 
> Those academic scholarships, all privately funded, didn't cover the entire $34,000/year cost.  I pay the difference.  Someone *expecting taxpayers* to fund their kids college is full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See?  Thats when you're all out of debate.  When you use such emotional buzzwords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to debate.  You support a bunch of freeloading parents expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
Click to expand...

ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.


----------



## Conservative65

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Selfish is someone *expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids* what *they won't fund* for themselves.  Since I don't *expect anyone else *to do anything other than what I do for my kids, it can't be selfish.
> 
> Those academic scholarships, all privately funded, didn't cover the entire $34,000/year cost.  I pay the difference.  Someone *expecting taxpayers* to fund their kids college is full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See?  Thats when you're all out of debate.  When you use such emotional buzzwords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to debate.  You support a bunch of freeloading parents expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about "should be instead".  I said it will not affect ANYONE unless they are HEDGE FUND MANAGERS.  So you pretending that you or I will be affected is a lie hiding behind false emotions.
Click to expand...


You're still thinking that anyone besides the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.    That's what you don't get.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Conservative65 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?  Thats when you're all out of debate.  When you use such emotional buzzwords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing to debate.  You support a bunch of freeloading parents expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
Click to expand...



yes it does


----------



## ClosedCaption

Conservative65 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?  Thats when you're all out of debate.  When you use such emotional buzzwords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing to debate.  You support a bunch of freeloading parents expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
Click to expand...


I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?


----------



## Conservative65

jon_berzerk said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing to debate.  You support a bunch of freeloading parents expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it does
Click to expand...


He seems to think that someone else paying is OK.


----------



## jon_berzerk

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing to debate.  You support a bunch of freeloading parents expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
Click to expand...


wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else


----------



## Conservative65

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing to debate.  You support a bunch of freeloading parents expecting taxpayers to fund for their kids what they won't fund for their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
Click to expand...


What you don't do is expect those who created the kids to fund it for their kids.  You support a bill that expects someone else, regardless of who that someone else may be, to do what you don't expect the kid's parents to do for them.  That's the issue.


----------



## Conservative65

jon_berzerk said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
Click to expand...


That's what CC doesn't get.  While he may believe only certain people will pay the cost, it's that he supports someone other than the parents of those kids being forced to do it that makes it a problem.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Conservative65 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what CC doesn't get.  While he may believe only certain people will pay the cost, it's that he supports someone other than the parents of those kids being forced to do it that makes it a problem.
Click to expand...



what he is saying in simpler terms is that 

two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch


----------



## Conservative65

jon_berzerk said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what CC doesn't get.  While he may believe only certain people will pay the cost, it's that he supports someone other than the parents of those kids being forced to do it that makes it a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what he is saying in simpler terms is that
> 
> two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch
Click to expand...


Or the Obama administration doing an internal audit and claiming no wrongdoing.


----------



## ClosedCaption

jon_berzerk said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of saying taxpayers can you say who it will affect specifically.  Hedge Fund Managers.  You're making it seem like you're going to be paying anything lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
Click to expand...


Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.


----------



## Conservative65

ClosedCaption said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
Click to expand...


Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
Click to expand...


Education handed out as a party favor is a hare-brained idea.

Let's see:  Arian is incapable, either deliberately or through mind-blowing ignorance, to understand what people say.  Survey says:  totally not surprising.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Manonthestreet said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of course I didnt say
Click to expand...


Of course you didn't, but Arian is a huge fan of the "spew as many retarded, misconstrued red herrings as you can to shut down any conversation among the real humans" school of leftist debate.  His goal is not only not to discuss topics, but to prevent anyone else from doing so, either.

He's the debate version of a turd in a party punch bowl.


----------



## Katzndogz

If some taxes must be paid to fund essential public services, it's okay to take  90 to 100% of someone's income to fund private services.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of course I didnt say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanders' proposal is about education.  Your posts are anti-fed, anti-Dem rants.  Post something substantive about education.
Click to expand...


Okay.

This year, FY 2016, the federal government in its latest budget has estimated that the deficit will be *$474 billion*.

US Federal Deficit Definition - plus charts and analysis

We can't afford to add even more spending commitments, particularly for things that are not the business of the federal government.

Consider yourself educated.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but streets are public property, and therefore a public funding concern.

Your kid's brain and future, however, are his private concern and yours.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Tipsycatlover said:


> If some taxes must be paid to fund essential public services, it's okay to take  90 to 100% of someone's income to fund private services.



You've just encapsulated the leftist "all or nothing" mindset.


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Education handed out as a party favor is a hare-brained idea.
Click to expand...

I agree.  Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea.  That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of course I didnt say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanders' proposal is about education.  Your posts are anti-fed, anti-Dem rants.  Post something substantive about education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanders bill is about advancing dem doctrine thru Fed mandates otherwise you get jack......next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is why more Americans need better education.  Thank you for illustrating my point.
Click to expand...


Well, getting you to talk IS the best way to provide evidence of how stupid and inane people have become, that's true.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently some people see the word "tax" and their brains shut down.
> 
> Here's a one-page summary of the proposal:
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file
> 
> Let me quote the only part that's apparently of concern (no one here has college-age kids?):
> 
> *Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.*
> This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
> s, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee
> on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could
> raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges
> and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the
> middle class of this country.
> 
> I'll be happy to break it down further if anyone's interested but, bottom line, unless you're a hedge fund manager (and a bad one), you've got nothing to worry about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
> s, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee
> on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could
> raise hundreds of billions a year*
> 
> Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?
Click to expand...


Funny thing is, leftists really do think people are going to just sit still quietly to be plucked like Thanksgiving turkeys, and then when they don't, they rant and rail and question their "patriotism".  As if willingly being ripped off is somehow patriotic.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Penelope said:


> Soon there won't be stick and motor colleges, no sense in adding on to them. I know teachers who got teaching degrees via net and did on the job training in her area ,, and also one does not need to go to school, except for testing's or for on the job training, or chemistry  classes, etc. There goes a lot of construction jobs,  teaching jobs, janitor jobs, etc. That will become the norm In they say 20 years.
> 
> They are even thinking of changing law schools, learn the basics and then pick your area, work under a mentor.
> 
> I mean today, a teen is young as 12 and as old as 29, start younger and last longer.



Well, apprenticeships were once the norm in learning a profession.  Not surprising they're coming back.  I myself am taking online courses in bookkeeping and accounting, and will most likely go to work for a local CPA after I complete to learn the hands-on aspect.


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, getting you to talk IS the best way to provide evidence of how stupid and inane people have become, that's true.



Is this your definition of "content" or is it a confession?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
Click to expand...


Translated:  "You're hurting someone other than yourself, so it's okay!"

I guess that works if you have no morality.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, getting you to talk IS the best way to provide evidence of how stupid and inane people have become, that's true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this your definition of "content" or is it a confession?
Click to expand...


Oh, hey, look.  The village idiot AGAIN can't understand English.  Why do I doubt anyone's surprised?


----------



## Dan Daly

Why have college costs skyrocketed?  Two words: Moral Hazard.  Look it up then explain to me how further corporate welfare from uncle sugar is going to make things better.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lived where state college was free, but yes college tuition has gone up so much, why, I know a teacher who got their degree online and by doing  testing and in-service at  a local school she lived by. Most brick and mortar colleges do more and more via internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as more and more colleges are forced to accept open carry, eventually all higher education will move online.  But, yeah, when Sanders went to Brooklyn College (a city university), it was tuition-free, as were all the SUNY (state universities) colleges.
> 
> Uh-oh.  I see why so many people in this thread are have shitfits.  They're thinking: Bernie Sanders got a free education.  Sanders is the Antichrist (well, except for Hillary).  Down with free education!  J/k...maybe.  Because Hillary went to Yale.  No free education there.
Click to expand...


Yeah, online education is becoming popular because people are afraid of their neighbors who acquire concealed-carry permits.    You've cracked the code!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenues? Just look at profits. Will they just give up hundreds of billions (a huge chunk of annual profit)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the Sanders campaign has looked at the accounting.  Clearly you have, too.  Present it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If his campaign thinks it will raises hundreds of billions, their accounting is wrong.
> 
> 
> The Monstrous Idiocy Of The Robin Hood Tax Rears Its Ugly Head Again
Click to expand...


Leftist accounting always assumes that people are going to submit quietly to being fleeced.  And then they're always surprised when the reality doesn't match their projections, and flail around like chickens with their heads cut off, trying to explain it away.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least he's not a geriatric Commie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Putin is 63.  Not geriatric necessarily, but all those shirtless photos are of a man trying waaaay too hard.  The Right needs to get over its infatuation with him.
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free stuff for everybody!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "free stuff."
> 
> But keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't like strongman Commies, like Putin, or weak man Commies, like Obama.
> And the Commies who just want to give away Trillions more to buy votes, like Sanders, Warren and Clinton suck too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So "commie" is code for "everyone who doesn't think like me."
> 
> This was a really good discussion up to now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Commie is code for assclowns like Sanders who want to add $18 trillion in new spending over the next decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That WSJ article has been debunked.
> 
> But I can see why your side is so reluctant to allow more kids to go to college.
Click to expand...


The definition of "allow" is not "fund it with tax dollars", Noah Webster.  Not that I would expect word meanings to give you anything but trouble.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sanders wants to make college free, just mandate zero tuition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's something Putin would do.  Apparently you approve of communism when it's implemented in your name.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll be happy to work for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I'm sure you would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is my side, "so reluctant to allow more kids to go to college"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because educated people are less likely to post drivel like the above.  And they'd compete with "why don't we just mandate free college tuition" types for jobs, and then were would you be?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a link to a debunking, perhaps you'll share?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider Business Insider a reputable source?
> 
> Bernie Sanders: My proposals don't cost $18 trillion - Business Insider
> 
> The WSJ either can't count or deliberately misinterpreted the data.
> 
> The more I read nonsense like your last post, the more I'm inclined to believe the former.
Click to expand...


Yeah, Business Insider isn't saying it won't cost $18 trillion, English major.  They're just reporting that Sanders said it wouldn't.  Learn to read.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Education handed out as a party favor is a hare-brained idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.  Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea.  That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.
Click to expand...




ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.
Click to expand...


You get something from funding the streets.  I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.


----------



## jillian

Conservative65 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
Click to expand...


easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.

funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Education handed out as a party favor is a hare-brained idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.  Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea.  That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get something from funding the streets.  I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.
Click to expand...


No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it.  Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it


----------



## Conservative65

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Education handed out as a party favor is a hare-brained idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.  Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea.  That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get something from funding the streets.  I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it.  Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it
Click to expand...


I don't use your streets but I still fund it.  That makes it a wash if you really want to get to a specific level.  However, I meant streets in general.  

I get nothing from funding social welfare programs.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education handed out as a party favor is a hare-brained idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.  Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea.  That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get something from funding the streets.  I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it.  Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't use your streets but I still fund it.  That makes it a wash if you really want to get to a specific level.  However, I meant streets in general.
> 
> I get nothing from funding social welfare programs.
Click to expand...



you would get as much as I do by funding your street.  Improving America


----------



## Conservative65

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
Click to expand...


In other words, do it your way?  You complain that those who actually pay something should pay more yet don't think those who pay nothing should contribute at all.  

In case you weren't aware, ALL tax brackets were lowered under Bush not just the upper ones.  

If what you propose doing is so good, find someone that can't afford to buy what you think they should have and buy it for them.  If it's so good to do so, you shouldn't have a problem voluntarily setting the example first.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
Click to expand...


*and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*

Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.


----------



## Conservative65

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education handed out as a party favor is a hare-brained idea.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea.  That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get something from funding the streets.  I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it.  Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't use your streets but I still fund it.  That makes it a wash if you really want to get to a specific level.  However, I meant streets in general.
> 
> I get nothing from funding social welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you would get as much as I do by funding your street.  Improving America
Click to expand...


What guarantee can you provide that funding college on the behalf of the lazy pieces of shit that won't do it for their own kids would improve America.  I need proof.


----------



## Conservative65

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
Click to expand...


When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?


----------



## ClosedCaption

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea.  That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get something from funding the streets.  I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it.  Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't use your streets but I still fund it.  That makes it a wash if you really want to get to a specific level.  However, I meant streets in general.
> 
> I get nothing from funding social welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you would get as much as I do by funding your street.  Improving America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What guarantee can you provide that funding college on the behalf of the lazy pieces of shit that won't do it for their own kids would improve America.  I need proof.
Click to expand...


Too bad, you dont run shit.  Life doesnt come with guarantees


----------



## jillian

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
Click to expand...


"for singles making more than $400,000 a year or couples making more than $450,000. The increase was part of the “fiscal cliff” package that Congress passed on New Year’s Day of 2013."

False Tax Claims


----------



## Conservative65

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get something from funding the streets.  I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it.  Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't use your streets but I still fund it.  That makes it a wash if you really want to get to a specific level.  However, I meant streets in general.
> 
> I get nothing from funding social welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you would get as much as I do by funding your street.  Improving America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What guarantee can you provide that funding college on the behalf of the lazy pieces of shit that won't do it for their own kids would improve America.  I need proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad, you dont run shit.  Life doesnt come with guarantees
Click to expand...


Neither do you.  However, if you're going to demand someone be forced to do something you support, having something to back it up goes along with it.  You have nothing but "I said so".  .  Typical leftwing, arrogant asshole.  Fuck those kids if their parents don't give a shit about them.  If their parents don't care, it damn sure isn't my place or any else's place to do so.


----------



## jillian

Conservative65 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
Click to expand...


and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.


----------



## Conservative65

jillian said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "for singles making more than $400,000 a year or couples making more than $450,000. The increase was part of the “fiscal cliff” package that Congress passed on New Year’s Day of 2013."
> 
> False Tax Claims
Click to expand...


For a family of four making almost $50,000/year, the rate is still zero.


----------



## Conservative65

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant unless you're willing to support ALL of them going back up.


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translated:  "You're hurting someone other than yourself, so it's okay!"
Click to expand...


Only if you don't understand the issue.

Besides, "end entitlements", "privatize Social Security," "let 'em eat cake," etc., etc. is your party's schtick.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

jillian said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "for singles making more than $400,000 a year or couples making more than $450,000. The increase was part of the “fiscal cliff” package that Congress passed on New Year’s Day of 2013."
> 
> False Tax Claims
Click to expand...


Did you want to return all the tax brackets to their former levels?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Conservative65 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
Click to expand...


Doesn't fit their narrative.


----------



## Conservative65

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't fit their narrative.
Click to expand...


Or they just don't know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.
Click to expand...

*
for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.*

The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!


----------



## jillian

Conservative65 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't fit their narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they just don't know.
Click to expand...


that's right.. .keep ignoring the actual facts:

False Tax Claims


----------



## Conservative65

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "for singles making more than $400,000 a year or couples making more than $450,000. The increase was part of the “fiscal cliff” package that Congress passed on New Year’s Day of 2013."
> 
> False Tax Claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you want to return all the tax brackets to their former levels?
Click to expand...


Although many say they want tax rates as they were prior to Bush, what they really mean is the highest brackets despite the fact that all were lowered.


----------



## jillian

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.*
> 
> The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!
Click to expand...


which is a lot of money if you're paying taxes on in excess of a million dollars, isn't it?


----------



## Conservative65

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't fit their narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they just don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's right.. .keep ignoring the actual facts:
> 
> False Tax Claims
Click to expand...



Almost half of the people in this country that earn an income don't pay income taxes.  In fact, many get more back than was withheld when filing a return.


----------



## Conservative65

jillian said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.*
> 
> The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which is a lot of money if you're paying taxes on in excess of a million dollars, isn't it?
Click to expand...


The bottom rate went from 15% to 10%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

jillian said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.*
> 
> The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which is a lot of money if you're paying taxes on in excess of a million dollars, isn't it?
Click to expand...


It's a bit over 11% of their tax liability.


----------



## Penelope

Conservative65 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't fit their narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they just don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's right.. .keep ignoring the actual facts:
> 
> False Tax Claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Almost half of the people in this country that earn an income don't pay income taxes.  In fact, many get more back than was withheld when filing a return.
Click to expand...


Who? Who is working and not paying taxes, those making min. wage with 4 kids?


----------



## Conservative65

Penelope said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't fit their narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they just don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's right.. .keep ignoring the actual facts:
> 
> False Tax Claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Almost half of the people in this country that earn an income don't pay income taxes.  In fact, many get more back than was withheld when filing a return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who? Who is working and not paying taxes, those making min. wage with 4 kids?
Click to expand...

 
Let's use your example of a family of six with two adults and four kids.  

That family, based solely on the makeup of the family, wouldn't pay any income taxes until the gross family income is $68,800 assuming they do not get any deductions or credits other than those related specifically to the family makeup.   Then, the total income tax would be $1.

We'll assume that both parents work in order to make that amount but it really doesn't matter to prove the point.  Considering that a 40 hour/week job working 52 weeks/year comes to 2080 hours/year, both working would be a total of 4160 hours/year.  $68,800/4160 equals $16.53/hour per parent.   I don't know about you but that's 228% of the current minimum wage and $1.53/hour higher than the $15/hour wage amount demanded by the left.  

To answer your question, no it's not just those working making minimum wage.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Its really weird how they seem to want more from the lowest rung of society while defending with pitch forks the uber rich


----------



## jon_berzerk

ClosedCaption said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making it out as if anyone other than the parents of those kids should be funding college for them.  Unless it's those parents doing it, no one else is responsible for doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
Click to expand...


too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for


----------



## ClosedCaption

jon_berzerk said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
Click to expand...



Of course you have a say and so do I.  If taxes are stealing then GTFO and move to that place that doesnt have taxes...also it doesnt exist but feel free to take a Ryder Truck there.  Unlimited miles


----------



## Conservative65

jon_berzerk said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
Click to expand...

Idiots like CC don't think so and say so at the same time they are complaining about taxes to fund things with which they disagree such as the military.  The difference is military spending is a delegated power of Congress and the Constitution says nothing about spending for education.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

he wants to turns our colleges and Universities into Detroit


----------



## jon_berzerk

Cecilie1200 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but streets are public property, and therefore a public funding concern.
> 
> Your kid's brain and future, however, are his private concern and yours.
Click to expand...




ClosedCaption said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you have a say and so do I.  If taxes are stealing then GTFO and move to that place that doesnt have taxes...also it doesnt exist but feel free to take a Ryder Truck there.  Unlimited miles
Click to expand...



things like roads are public works things like funding your kids education not so much 

sorry folks are not going to sink into your commie lifestyle wishes


----------



## jon_berzerk

Conservative65 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiots like CC don't think so and say so at the same time they are complaining about taxes to fund things with which they disagree such as the military.  The difference is military spending is a delegated power of Congress and the Constitution says nothing about spending for education.
Click to expand...

not a word 

time to have a balanced budget


----------



## ClosedCaption

Conservative65 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiots like CC don't think so and say so at the same time they are complaining about taxes to fund things with which they disagree such as the military.  The difference is military spending is a delegated power of Congress and the Constitution says nothing about spending for education.
Click to expand...


So?


----------



## Conservative65

ClosedCaption said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you have a say and so do I.  If taxes are stealing then GTFO and move to that place that doesnt have taxes...also it doesnt exist but feel free to take a Ryder Truck there.  Unlimited miles
Click to expand...

The problem is when someone says something you don't like, your answer is GTFO.  When you can get me out and are man enough to enforce your demand, do so.


----------



## Conservative65

jon_berzerk said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiots like CC don't think so and say so at the same time they are complaining about taxes to fund things with which they disagree such as the military.  The difference is military spending is a delegated power of Congress and the Constitution says nothing about spending for education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not a word
> 
> time to have a balanced budget
Click to expand...


On another response, he said both of us have a say and so does he.  The problem is, based on his words, if he doesn't like what we say he says to GTFO.


----------



## jon_berzerk

ditto


----------



## ClosedCaption

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you have a say and so do I.  If taxes are stealing then GTFO and move to that place that doesnt have taxes...also it doesnt exist but feel free to take a Ryder Truck there.  Unlimited miles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is when someone says something you don't like, your answer is GTFO.  When you can get me out and are man enough to enforce your demand, do so.
Click to expand...


I just want you to stop crying over reality.  But dont mind me, continue your whine fest


----------



## jon_berzerk

Conservative65 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiots like CC don't think so and say so at the same time they are complaining about taxes to fund things with which they disagree such as the military.  The difference is military spending is a delegated power of Congress and the Constitution says nothing about spending for education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not a word
> 
> time to have a balanced budget
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On another response, he said both of us have a say and so does he.  The problem is, based on his words, if he doesn't like what we say he says to GTFO.
Click to expand...



most leftists dont like our say 

some will do anything to shut it down 

since they are against liberty and freedom


----------



## Conservative65

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiots like CC don't think so and say so at the same time they are complaining about taxes to fund things with which they disagree such as the military.  The difference is military spending is a delegated power of Congress and the Constitution says nothing about spending for education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
Click to expand...

So you don't mind looking stupid for supporting something not in the Constitution while complaining about something that is?


----------



## Penelope

\


Toddsterpatriot said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.*
> 
> The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!
Click to expand...


Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% . He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again  and raised the lower in the end.


----------



## Penelope

jon_berzerk said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> not so in a communist utopia
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
Click to expand...


Um, no you don't.


----------



## Conservative65

Penelope said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no you don't.
Click to expand...


Then no one does according to how you think.


----------



## Conservative65

Penelope said:


> \
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.*
> 
> The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% . He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again  and raised the lower in the end.
Click to expand...


Aren't you lefties always talking about equality.  If so, why shouldn't everyone be paying the SAME percentage on income.  Isn't that equal?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Penelope said:


> \
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.*
> 
> The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% . He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again  and raised the lower in the end.
Click to expand...


*Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% .*

Yes he did.

*He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again  and raised the lower in the end*

How did he raise the lower?


----------



## Penelope

Conservative65 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then no one does according to how you think.
Click to expand...


Really I vote all the time, even for mileages , and well I guess I always get the short end of the stick. What am I doing wrong since I no longer even think our vote counts.


----------



## Conservative65

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> \
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.*
> 
> The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% . He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again  and raised the lower in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% .*
> 
> Yes he did.
> 
> *He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again  and raised the lower in the end*
> 
> How did he raise the lower?
Click to expand...


When Reagan took office, there were a dozen or more brackets for all filing categories.  In 1987, it went to five.  Based on the consolidation, those on the lower end paid at a lower rate taking into account the income ranges at which each percentage applied.


----------



## Penelope

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> \
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.*
> 
> The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% . He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again  and raised the lower in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% .*
> 
> Yes he did.
> 
> *He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again  and raised the lower in the end*
> 
> How did he raise the lower?
Click to expand...


I know its wiki but the links check out. We have to remember back then we were yet in growth mode and right now we are not in any growth.


The *top tax rate for individuals was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%*.[4] Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[5]* This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the **Revenue Act of 1862**) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. *In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.

The rate structure also maintained a novel "bubble rate." The rates were not 15%/28%, as widely reported. Rather, the rates were *15%/28%/33%/28%*. As a result, for taxpayers after a certain income level, TRA86 provided a flat tax of 28%. This was jettisoned in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, otherwise known as the "Bush tax increase", which violated his Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Conservative65

Penelope said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> \
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.*
> 
> The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% . He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again  and raised the lower in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% .*
> 
> Yes he did.
> 
> *He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again  and raised the lower in the end*
> 
> How did he raise the lower?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know its wiki but the links check out. We have to remember back then we were yet in growth mode and right now we are not in any growth.
> 
> 
> The *top tax rate for individuals was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%*.[4] Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[5]* This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the **Revenue Act of 1862**) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. *In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.
> 
> The rate structure also maintained a novel "bubble rate." The rates were not 15%/28%, as widely reported. Rather, the rates were *15%/28%/33%/28%*. As a result, for taxpayers after a certain income level, TRA86 provided a flat tax of 28%. This was jettisoned in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, otherwise known as the "Bush tax increase", which violated his Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
> 
> Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


And today we still have almost half that pay 0%.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> And today we still have almost half that pay 0%.



How many poor people would you have to tax at what rate (and by what means do you imagine they'd pay it?) to make up the $6 billion shortfall the Waltons incur every year?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And today we still have almost half that pay 0%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many poor people would you have to tax at what rate (and by what means do you imagine they'd pay it?) to make up the $6 billion shortfall the Waltons incur every year?
Click to expand...


Shortfall? How do you figure?


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And today we still have almost half that pay 0%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many poor people would you have to tax at what rate (and by what means do you imagine they'd pay it?) to make up the $6 billion shortfall the Waltons incur every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shortfall? How do you figure?
Click to expand...


Offshoring mostly:

Walmart: Report On $76 Billion Hidden In Tax Havens 'Flawed'

Then there's the additional $6.2 billion they cost the taxpayer:

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

And they're not the only ones (just the most conspicuous).  A sampling of S&P 500 companies:

[CHART] U.S. Corporations That Pay No Taxes

But Conservative65 wants to go knocking on doors in working-class neighborhoods confiscating the kids' piggy-banks instead.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And today we still have almost half that pay 0%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many poor people would you have to tax at what rate (and by what means do you imagine they'd pay it?) to make up the $6 billion shortfall the Waltons incur every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shortfall? How do you figure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Offshoring mostly:
> 
> Walmart: Report On $76 Billion Hidden In Tax Havens 'Flawed'
> 
> Then there's the additional $6.2 billion they cost the taxpayer:
> 
> Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
> 
> And they're not the only ones (just the most conspicuous).  A sampling of S&P 500 companies:
> 
> [CHART] U.S. Corporations That Pay No Taxes
> 
> But Conservative65 wants to go knocking on doors in working-class neighborhoods confiscating the kids' piggy-banks instead.
Click to expand...


*Offshoring mostly:
*
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Thanks for the links. Do you have any that actually back up your claim?

Overseas earnings kept overseas aren't a "$6 billion shortfall".

Welfare paid to employees isn't a "$6 billion shortfall" either.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So education is a "hare-brained idea"?  I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Education handed out as a party favor is a hare-brained idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.  Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea.  That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get something from funding the streets.  I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it.  Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it
Click to expand...


Actually, if you don't live in my city, you don't fund my streets.  If you DO live in my city, then you're using the streets.

Nice hairsplitting, though.  The fact remains that streets are public property, and that kid's brain ain't.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education handed out as a party favor is a hare-brained idea.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea.  That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get something from funding the streets.  I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it.  Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't use your streets but I still fund it.  That makes it a wash if you really want to get to a specific level.  However, I meant streets in general.
> 
> I get nothing from funding social welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you would get as much as I do by funding your street.  Improving America
Click to expand...


Wrong.  One more time for the thinking-impaired among us:  streets are public property.  Educations aren't.


----------



## Vigilante

Well, he IS Santa Clause...along with most of the Motley Crew!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea.  That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get something from funding the streets.  I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it.  Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't use your streets but I still fund it.  That makes it a wash if you really want to get to a specific level.  However, I meant streets in general.
> 
> I get nothing from funding social welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you would get as much as I do by funding your street.  Improving America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What guarantee can you provide that funding college on the behalf of the lazy pieces of shit that won't do it for their own kids would improve America.  I need proof.
Click to expand...


They just "know" that sending every dipshit who doesn't want to get a job right after high school to college is somehow going to produce a smarter, more useful populace, all evidence from actually speaking with college kids notwithstanding.


----------



## Cecilie1200

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose making college affordable for all?  The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.
> 
> funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.*
> 
> Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.
Click to expand...


If you don't aspire to do more than flip burgers or landscape yards, exactly how much do you expect to get?  You weren't having much withheld to start with.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That word doesn't mean what you think it means.



It means keeping funds in overseas banks.  The Caymans are the usual place, but there are others.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Overseas earnings kept overseas aren't a "$6 billion shortfall".



They are taxes that, if corporations actually were "people," would have to be paid.

Because Walmart isn't paying them, the middle-class is.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Welfare paid to employees isn't a "$6 billion shortfall" either.



SNAP benefits are paid for by your tax dollars.

You can dance around the terminology, but the fact is that if corporations find work-arounds, the individual taxpayer who doesn't have the luxury of hiding his assets, pays more.  And closing those loopholes would be far less labor-intensive, and result in far more net revenue, than bullying the working poor.

Any thoughts about the chart at the last link?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translated:  "You're hurting someone other than yourself, so it's okay!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you don't understand the issue.
> 
> Besides, "end entitlements", "privatize Social Security," "let 'em eat cake," etc., etc. is your party's schtick.
Click to expand...


No, Chuckles, I understand both the issue and your drivel.  That's what you're saying:  we're not taking it from you, so why should you care?

And lower taxes is not an entitlement, unless you're so piss-stupid as to think that A) every dollar a person gets actually belongs to the government, and every dollar not taken in taxes is a "generous gift" from said government, and B) this is a good and positive state of affairs.


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> That's what you're saying:  we're not taking it from you, so why should you care?



Unless you're a member of the Walton family, in which case you are.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Penelope said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't fit their narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they just don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's right.. .keep ignoring the actual facts:
> 
> False Tax Claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Almost half of the people in this country that earn an income don't pay income taxes.  In fact, many get more back than was withheld when filing a return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who? Who is working and not paying taxes, those making min. wage with 4 kids?
Click to expand...


Nice try.  46% of households do not pay federal income taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/19/us/politics/who-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes.html?_r=0

Since it's the NY Times, though, note how when they went down to state taxes, they had to switch over to "larger percentage of their income", just so we don't get too clear a picture of how little of the total tax burden most people actually shoulder.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you're saying:  we're not taking it from you, so why should you care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're a member of the Walton family, in which case you are.
Click to expand...


See, I care because I have a sense of right and wrong, rather than "What can I get for myself, and who can I take it from?"  I'd make a lousy leftist.  Too many brain cells, too many morals.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ClosedCaption said:


> Its really weird how they seem to want more from the lowest rung of society while defending with pitch forks the uber rich



No, the main thing we want from "the lowest rung" is to stop whining about how we need to rob other people and give them the money because "it's not fair!"  I don't accept that kind of bullshit from my kids, and I LIKE them.


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't fit their narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they just don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's right.. .keep ignoring the actual facts:
> 
> False Tax Claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Almost half of the people in this country that earn an income don't pay income taxes.  In fact, many get more back than was withheld when filing a return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who? Who is working and not paying taxes, those making min. wage with 4 kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try.  46% of households do not pay federal income taxes.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/19/us/politics/who-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes.html?_r=0
> 
> Since it's the NY Times, though, note how when they went down to state taxes, they had to switch over to "larger percentage of their income", just so we don't get too clear a picture of how little of the total tax burden most people actually shoulder.
Click to expand...


You apparently don't have a clear picture of how much state taxes vary from one state to the next.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ClosedCaption said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you have a say and so do I.  If taxes are stealing then GTFO and move to that place that doesnt have taxes...also it doesnt exist but feel free to take a Ryder Truck there.  Unlimited miles
Click to expand...


Right after YOU move your ass out to somewhere that has all the things you keep demanding Daddy Government give you.


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you're saying:  we're not taking it from you, so why should you care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're a member of the Walton family, in which case you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, I care because I have a sense of right and wrong.
Click to expand...


Which proves you're not a Walton.  That's great!


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you have a say and so do I.  If taxes are stealing then GTFO and move to that place that doesnt have taxes...also it doesnt exist but feel free to take a Ryder Truck there.  Unlimited miles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right after YOU move your ass out to somewhere that has all the things you keep demanding Daddy Government give you.
Click to expand...

It's "nanny state."  Time to brush up on your talking points.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means keeping funds in overseas banks.  The Caymans are the usual place, but there are others.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overseas earnings kept overseas aren't a "$6 billion shortfall".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are taxes that, if corporations actually were "people," would have to be paid.
> 
> Because Walmart isn't paying them, the middle-class is.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare paid to employees isn't a "$6 billion shortfall" either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SNAP benefits are paid for by your tax dollars.
> 
> You can dance around the terminology, but the fact is that if corporations find work-arounds, the individual taxpayer who doesn't have the luxury of hiding his assets, pays more.  And closing those loopholes would be far less labor-intensive, and result in far more net revenue, than bullying the working poor.
> 
> Any thoughts about the chart at the last link?
Click to expand...


*It means keeping funds in overseas banks.
*
What funds? From where?
*
They are taxes that, if corporations actually were "people," would have to be paid.
*
Why do you feel the German subsidiary of a US company should pay US taxes on money earned in Germany?
*
Because Walmart isn't paying them, the middle-class is.*

WalMart paid $6.2 billion in corporate income tax in 2014.

*SNAP benefits are paid for by your tax dollars.*

Yup. And if WalMart laid off their SNAP recipients, would welfare payments increase or decrease?


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means keeping funds in overseas banks.  The Caymans are the usual place, but there are others.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overseas earnings kept overseas aren't a "$6 billion shortfall".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are taxes that, if corporations actually were "people," would have to be paid.
> 
> Because Walmart isn't paying them, the middle-class is.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare paid to employees isn't a "$6 billion shortfall" either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SNAP benefits are paid for by your tax dollars.
> 
> You can dance around the terminology, but the fact is that if corporations find work-arounds, the individual taxpayer who doesn't have the luxury of hiding his assets, pays more.  And closing those loopholes would be far less labor-intensive, and result in far more net revenue, than bullying the working poor.
> 
> Any thoughts about the chart at the last link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It means keeping funds in overseas banks.
> *
> What funds? From where?
> *
> They are taxes that, if corporations actually were "people," would have to be paid.
> *
> Why do you feel the German subsidiary of a US company should pay US taxes on money earned in Germany?
> *
> Because Walmart isn't paying them, the middle-class is.*
> 
> WalMart paid $6.2 billion in corporate income tax in 2014.
> 
> *SNAP benefits are paid for by your tax dollars.*
> 
> Yup. And if WalMart laid off their SNAP recipients, would welfare payments increase or decrease?
Click to expand...


Given Walmart's losses last week, they'll probably close some stores.  In an ideal world, Costco would move in and pay those employees the same $15 an hour they pay their current employees.

Now, since you've avoided this: [CHART] U.S. Corporations That Pay No Taxes twice, I think I'll skip the rest of your post.  Maybe you can join Conservative65 in squeezing a few dollars out of a few million working people.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means keeping funds in overseas banks.  The Caymans are the usual place, but there are others.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overseas earnings kept overseas aren't a "$6 billion shortfall".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are taxes that, if corporations actually were "people," would have to be paid.
> 
> Because Walmart isn't paying them, the middle-class is.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare paid to employees isn't a "$6 billion shortfall" either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SNAP benefits are paid for by your tax dollars.
> 
> You can dance around the terminology, but the fact is that if corporations find work-arounds, the individual taxpayer who doesn't have the luxury of hiding his assets, pays more.  And closing those loopholes would be far less labor-intensive, and result in far more net revenue, than bullying the working poor.
> 
> Any thoughts about the chart at the last link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It means keeping funds in overseas banks.
> *
> What funds? From where?
> *
> They are taxes that, if corporations actually were "people," would have to be paid.
> *
> Why do you feel the German subsidiary of a US company should pay US taxes on money earned in Germany?
> *
> Because Walmart isn't paying them, the middle-class is.*
> 
> WalMart paid $6.2 billion in corporate income tax in 2014.
> 
> *SNAP benefits are paid for by your tax dollars.*
> 
> Yup. And if WalMart laid off their SNAP recipients, would welfare payments increase or decrease?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given Walmart's losses last week, they'll probably close some stores.  In an ideal world, Costco would move in and pay those employees the same $15 an hour they pay their current employees.
> 
> Now, since you've avoided this: [CHART] U.S. Corporations That Pay No Taxes twice, I think I'll skip the rest of your post.  Maybe you can join Conservative65 in squeezing a few dollars out of a few million working people.
Click to expand...

*
Now, since you've avoided this: **[CHART] U.S. Corporations That Pay No Taxes** twice,*

I love those bullshit lists. Without a solid explanation why they paid zero in 2014, it's useless.
I just looked up Goodyear. Here's why they paid zero.


Tax Benefit Jacks Up Goodyear Tire Earnings -

Is there some reason this unfair?
*
 I think I'll skip the rest of your post.* 

Of course you will.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Penelope said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying.   It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no you don't.
Click to expand...



certainly do dipshit


----------



## jon_berzerk

Conservative65 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says.  So again, you nor I will be affected.  Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then no one does according to how you think.
Click to expand...

exactly


----------



## jon_berzerk

Vigilante said:


> Well, he IS Santa Clause...along with most of the Motley Crew!




no they dont 

they just want you to believe 

that if elected they would be Santa


----------



## Conservative65

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get something from funding the streets.  I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it.  Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't use your streets but I still fund it.  That makes it a wash if you really want to get to a specific level.  However, I meant streets in general.
> 
> I get nothing from funding social welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you would get as much as I do by funding your street.  Improving America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What guarantee can you provide that funding college on the behalf of the lazy pieces of shit that won't do it for their own kids would improve America.  I need proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They just "know" that sending every dipshit who doesn't want to get a job right after high school to college is somehow going to produce a smarter, more useful populace, all evidence from actually speaking with college kids notwithstanding.
Click to expand...


I've had more than one when I asked for a guarantee ask me if every investment I made was guaranteed.  The answer was no.  The thing is there is one big difference between the investments I made and this "investment".  I was the one doing the picking on the investment not someone else forcing me to do so.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And today we still have almost half that pay 0%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many poor people would you have to tax at what rate (and by what means do you imagine they'd pay it?) to make up the $6 billion shortfall the Waltons incur every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shortfall? How do you figure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Offshoring mostly:
> 
> Walmart: Report On $76 Billion Hidden In Tax Havens 'Flawed'
> 
> Then there's the additional $6.2 billion they cost the taxpayer:
> 
> Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
> 
> And they're not the only ones (just the most conspicuous).  A sampling of S&P 500 companies:
> 
> [CHART] U.S. Corporations That Pay No Taxes
> 
> But Conservative65 wants to go knocking on doors in working-class neighborhoods confiscating the kids' piggy-banks instead.
Click to expand...


What I want is for you to expect the almost half of the population that doesn't pay income taxes to start doing what you expect MORE of from big corporations.  

What I want if for you to expect people to pay for their own kid's college and quit expecting the rest of us to be forced to fund for those kids what their own parents won't do.


----------



## Conservative65

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And today we still have almost half that pay 0%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many poor people would you have to tax at what rate (and by what means do you imagine they'd pay it?) to make up the $6 billion shortfall the Waltons incur every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shortfall? How do you figure?
Click to expand...


Yet people like Arianrhod don't think about the amount that people who don't pay income taxes get in the earned income credit, an amount beyond what they may have had taken out in withholdings.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Cecilie1200 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its really weird how they seem to want more from the lowest rung of society while defending with pitch forks the uber rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the main thing we want from "the lowest rung" is to stop whining about how we need to rob other people and give them the money because "it's not fair!"  I don't accept that kind of bullshit from my kids, and I LIKE them.
Click to expand...


Yeah, they shouldnt bother you with their whining while they live and get treated like shit.  But its all about you and your precious precious ears hearing things.  Thats your complaint, hearing people.  GTFOH lol


----------



## ClosedCaption

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, if you don't live in my city, you don't fund my streets. If you DO live in my city, then you're using the streets.
> 
> Nice hairsplitting, though. The fact remains that streets are public property, and that kid's brain ain't.



Really?  This is your argument? I say, this will benefit America and Americans and your response is "Derp, a kids brain isnt public property!"


----------



## Conservative65

ClosedCaption said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you don't live in my city, you don't fund my streets. If you DO live in my city, then you're using the streets.
> 
> Nice hairsplitting, though. The fact remains that streets are public property, and that kid's brain ain't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  This is your argument? I say, this will benefit America and Americans and your response is "Derp, a kids brain isnt public property!"
Click to expand...


You didn't show any verifiable support that it will benefit American and Americans.  You just said that it will.  Are we supposed to take your word for it?  What guarantee can you provide that the "investment" you want us to accept being forced to make will produce the results you claim it will produce?


----------



## Stephanie

I'm just wondering how they are going to get all these gang members, criminals, etc to go take Advantage of the taxpayer funded FREE college? Are they going to send someone to their homes AND DRAG them to one. this is just more vote buying and more taking advantage of YOU THE TAXPAYERS. what's sad is to see so many of the citizens today cheering this no matter it's coming off the backs of their fellow countrymen and women's hard work and taking from their families


----------



## Conservative65

Stephanie said:


> I'm just wondering how they are going to get all these gang members, criminals, etc to go take Advantage of the taxpayer funded FREE college? Are they going to send someone to their homes AND DRAG them to one. this is just more vote buying and more taking advantage of YOU THE TAXPAYERS. what's sad is to see so many of the citizens today cheering this no matter it's coming off the backs of their fellow countrymen and women's hard work and taking from their families



It's nothing more than another example of how the rest of us are supposed to provide something to the kids of people where the only time they gave attention to them was during the process of conception.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are force.  Dont like taxes?  Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you have a say and so do I.  If taxes are stealing then GTFO and move to that place that doesnt have taxes...also it doesnt exist but feel free to take a Ryder Truck there.  Unlimited miles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right after YOU move your ass out to somewhere that has all the things you keep demanding Daddy Government give you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's "nanny state."  Time to brush up on your talking points.
Click to expand...


Oh, look, you're still talking like you matter and are taken seriously.  How adorable.  The grownups are talking, Junior.  Why don't you run along and stick a fork in a light socket or chase a ball into the street or something?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stephanie said:


> I'm just wondering how they are going to get all these gang members, criminals, etc to go take Advantage of the taxpayer funded FREE college? Are they going to send someone to their homes AND DRAG them to one. this is just more vote buying and more taking advantage of YOU THE TAXPAYERS. what's sad is to see so many of the citizens today cheering this no matter it's coming off the backs of their fellow countrymen and women's hard work and taking from their families



Oh, now, Stephanie, you KNOW the only reason that those nice folks are joining gangs and committing crimes is because The Man has prevented them from fulfilling their true heart's desire, which is to go to college and be frat boys and academics.


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, look, you're still talking like you matter and are taken seriously.  How adorable.  The grownups are talking, Junior.  Why don't you run along and stick a fork in a light socket or chase a ball into the street or something?



Excellent content.  Pertinent to the topic and everything.  You're the best!


----------



## Cecilie1200

ClosedCaption said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its really weird how they seem to want more from the lowest rung of society while defending with pitch forks the uber rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the main thing we want from "the lowest rung" is to stop whining about how we need to rob other people and give them the money because "it's not fair!"  I don't accept that kind of bullshit from my kids, and I LIKE them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, they shouldnt bother you with their whining while they live and get treated like shit.  But its all about you and your precious precious ears hearing things.  Thats your complaint, hearing people.  GTFOH lol
Click to expand...


Yes, that would be the very whining I was talking about.  Thank you for the demonstration . . . and piss off with your demands, and utterly unfounded and undeserved outrage.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Cecilie1200 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its really weird how they seem to want more from the lowest rung of society while defending with pitch forks the uber rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the main thing we want from "the lowest rung" is to stop whining about how we need to rob other people and give them the money because "it's not fair!"  I don't accept that kind of bullshit from my kids, and I LIKE them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, they shouldnt bother you with their whining while they live and get treated like shit.  But its all about you and your precious precious ears hearing things.  Thats your complaint, hearing people.  GTFOH lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be the very whining I was talking about.  Thank you for the demonstration . . . and piss off with your demands, and utterly unfounded and undeserved outrage.
Click to expand...


My heart bleeds for you.  Are you ok?  Do you need a bandaid?  Words cut deep yanno


----------



## Cecilie1200

ClosedCaption said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its really weird how they seem to want more from the lowest rung of society while defending with pitch forks the uber rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the main thing we want from "the lowest rung" is to stop whining about how we need to rob other people and give them the money because "it's not fair!"  I don't accept that kind of bullshit from my kids, and I LIKE them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, they shouldnt bother you with their whining while they live and get treated like shit.  But its all about you and your precious precious ears hearing things.  Thats your complaint, hearing people.  GTFOH lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be the very whining I was talking about.  Thank you for the demonstration . . . and piss off with your demands, and utterly unfounded and undeserved outrage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My heart bleeds for you.  Are you ok?  Do you need a bandaid?  Words cut deep yanno
Click to expand...


Yeah, you just keep flattering yourself that you're anything but a joke.  And then perhaps we can get back to your butt chapping because no one wants to listen to how "unfair" it is that poor people can't soak their neighbors for even more money.


----------



## Arianrhod

In my observation, the majority of those who are outraged by the idea of academically qualified kids from poor and working class families going to college feel threatened by the competition...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> In my observation, the majority of those who are outraged by the idea of academically qualified kids from poor and working class families going to college feel threatened by the competition...



*academically qualified kids from poor and working class families going to college
*
I predict the increase in  "academically qualified kids from poor and working class families" would be tiny.
Most of the increase will be people who have no chance of successfully completing college with a useful degree.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my observation, the majority of those who are outraged by the idea of academically qualified kids from poor and working class families going to college feel threatened by the competition...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *academically qualified kids from poor and working class families going to college
> *
> I predict the increase in  "academically qualified kids from poor and working class families" would be tiny.
> Most of the increase will be people who have no chance of successfully completing college with a useful degree.
Click to expand...


You mean the way it was when state universities were tuition free?  History says you're probably mistaken.

I think the influx of kids who never had a chance before would also impact curriculum.  They're not going to sit still for courses in basket-weaving.  They'll be far more motivated than trust-fund babies and Ivy legacy kids to learn to earn.

Probably moot now, anyway, unless Hillary starts touting a similar plan.  You guys and Benghazi really put her over the top yesterday.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my observation, the majority of those who are outraged by the idea of academically qualified kids from poor and working class families going to college feel threatened by the competition...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *academically qualified kids from poor and working class families going to college
> *
> I predict the increase in  "academically qualified kids from poor and working class families" would be tiny.
> Most of the increase will be people who have no chance of successfully completing college with a useful degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the way it was when state universities were tuition free?  History says you're probably mistaken.
> 
> I think the influx of kids who never had a chance before would also impact curriculum.  They're not going to sit still for courses in basket-weaving.  They'll be far more motivated than trust-fund babies and Ivy legacy kids to learn to earn.
> 
> Probably moot now, anyway, unless Hillary starts touting a similar plan.  You guys and Benghazi really put her over the top yesterday.
Click to expand...


*You mean the way it was when state universities were tuition free?
*
What percentage of students went to college back then?

*I think the influx of kids who never had a chance before would also impact curriculum. *

You bet. Imagine the jump in remedial math and English classes.

*They're not going to sit still for courses in basket-weaving.
*
Bullshit. Any academically qualified and motivated poor kid can already get into college.
You'll be adding mostly unqualified mostly unmotivated kids who want to move out of the house and party on the taxpayer's dime.
*
You guys and Benghazi really put her over the top yesterday.
*
Yeah, highlighting her lies to the families of the dead is gonna win her lots of votes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> In my observation, the majority of those who are outraged by the idea of academically qualified kids from poor and working class families going to college feel threatened by the competition...



And your observation carries less weight than a puff of warm hydrogen.


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my observation, the majority of those who are outraged by the idea of academically qualified kids from poor and working class families going to college feel threatened by the competition...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your observation carries less weight than a puff of warm hydrogen.
Click to expand...

Wow, another contentless post!  How do you get away with it?

Intelligent people understand the source of the revenue to return state universities to the free tuition status they began with and realize there's no impact on their lives.

The ignorant should concern themselves with how much Trump's Great Big Wall will cost them in direct taxation.

Or they can just keep bumping threads with contentless posts for which they somehow don't get warned.


----------



## basquebromance

this is what is looks like when you feel the bern!


----------



## TooTall

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It is a tax on all stock trades. Higher costs for my mutual funds takes money away from my retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your broker is an idiot.  If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.  Kind of like when a retailer hides the sales tax in the cost of the widget you're buying.
Click to expand...


When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?  Sales taxes are not hidden in the cost of widgets.  That is against the law.


----------



## Conservative65

basquebromance said:


> this is what is looks like when you feel the bern!



That's what it looks like when you incorrectly think someone owes you college tuition because some old, senile piece of shit told you so.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my observation, the majority of those who are outraged by the idea of academically qualified kids from poor and working class families going to college feel threatened by the competition...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your observation carries less weight than a puff of warm hydrogen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, another contentless post!  How do you get away with it?
> 
> Intelligent people understand the source of the revenue to return state universities to the free tuition status they began with and realize there's no impact on their lives.
> 
> The ignorant should concern themselves with how much Trump's Great Big Wall will cost them in direct taxation.
> 
> Or they can just keep bumping threads with contentless posts for which they somehow don't get warned.
Click to expand...


If that great big wall will help keep out illegal freeloaders that receive handouts despite lying Liberals saying they don't, that's worth the investment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

TooTall said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It is a tax on all stock trades. Higher costs for my mutual funds takes money away from my retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your broker is an idiot.  If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.  Kind of like when a retailer hides the sales tax in the cost of the widget you're buying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?  Sales taxes are not hidden in the cost of widgets.  That is against the law.
Click to expand...


*When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?*

I want to know which brokers are going to take tens of billions in losses every year.
So I can short their stock.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this move might cost Sanders the nomination.     The  general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
> proposal to fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It is a tax on all stock trades. Higher costs for my mutual funds takes money away from my retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your broker is an idiot.  If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.  Kind of like when a retailer hides the sales tax in the cost of the widget you're buying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?  Sales taxes are not hidden in the cost of widgets.  That is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?*
> 
> I want to know which brokers are going to take tens of billions in losses every year.
> So I can short their stock.
Click to expand...


Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year, much less make _trillions_ so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?  

Y'all are ridiculous.


----------



## TooTall

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It is a tax on all stock trades. Higher costs for my mutual funds takes money away from my retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your broker is an idiot.  If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.  Kind of like when a retailer hides the sales tax in the cost of the widget you're buying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?  Sales taxes are not hidden in the cost of widgets.  That is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?*
> 
> I want to know which brokers are going to take tens of billions in losses every year.
> So I can short their stock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year, much less make _trillions_ so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
> 
> Y'all are ridiculous.
Click to expand...


I suggest the poster meant tens of billions a year in losses.  The money has to come from the market and this is what you posted in post #3.

"This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
s, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee 
on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that *this provision could 
raise hundreds of billions a year,*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A *ONE-HALF PERCENT* TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!
> 
> Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It is a tax on all stock trades. Higher costs for my mutual funds takes money away from my retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your broker is an idiot.  If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.  Kind of like when a retailer hides the sales tax in the cost of the widget you're buying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?  Sales taxes are not hidden in the cost of widgets.  That is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?*
> 
> I want to know which brokers are going to take tens of billions in losses every year.
> So I can short their stock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year, much less make _trillions_ so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
> 
> Y'all are ridiculous.
Click to expand...


*Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year,
*
Well, Goldman made about $8 billion last year.
I'm sure they'd be glad to "write them off as a loss", to pay this idiotic tax.

*much less make *_*trillions*_* so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
*
Why are you confusing profits, "make trillions", with a tax on the trades of clients?
It's almost as if you have no clue about how this would work.
Are you Bernie Sanders?


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It is a tax on all stock trades. Higher costs for my mutual funds takes money away from my retirement.
> 
> 
> 
> If your broker is an idiot.  If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.  Kind of like when a retailer hides the sales tax in the cost of the widget you're buying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?  Sales taxes are not hidden in the cost of widgets.  That is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?*
> 
> I want to know which brokers are going to take tens of billions in losses every year.
> So I can short their stock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year, much less make _trillions_ so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
> 
> Y'all are ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year,
> *
> Well, Goldman made about $8 billion last year.
> I'm sure they'd be glad to "write them off as a loss", to pay this idiotic tax.
> 
> *much less make *_*trillions*_* so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
> *
> Why are you confusing profits, "make trillions", with a tax on the trades of clients?
> It's almost as if you have no clue about how this would work.
Click to expand...


It could work one of two ways.  They could do what they always do and pass the fees on to the clients, or they could be intelligent and absorb those fees themselves.  If they were intelligent, they could even market themselves as "the guys who don't pass the fees on to our clients."

Then again, if "intelligent" and "broker" were comfortable in the same sentence, they wouldn't have caused the Crash of '08...


----------



## Penelope

Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.  I do find fault with it costing nothing to go to college, when people get something for free, they misuse it. Look at the rick college kids as compared to the ones who are working their way through school or taking out loans.

College needs to be available for all kids who want to go though. I do not want to see an increase in property taxes, state income taxes,  or  sales tax to pay for this or any tax burden on the tax payers of a state. I am afraid this is what is going to happen. The rich can buy favors in congress and always get out of paying taxes, the middle income can not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your broker is an idiot.  If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.  Kind of like when a retailer hides the sales tax in the cost of the widget you're buying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?  Sales taxes are not hidden in the cost of widgets.  That is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?*
> 
> I want to know which brokers are going to take tens of billions in losses every year.
> So I can short their stock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year, much less make _trillions_ so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
> 
> Y'all are ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year,
> *
> Well, Goldman made about $8 billion last year.
> I'm sure they'd be glad to "write them off as a loss", to pay this idiotic tax.
> 
> *much less make *_*trillions*_* so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
> *
> Why are you confusing profits, "make trillions", with a tax on the trades of clients?
> It's almost as if you have no clue about how this would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could work one of two ways.  They could do what they always do and pass the fees on to the clients, or they could be intelligent and absorb those fees themselves.  If they were intelligent, they could even market themselves as "the guys who don't pass the fees on to our clients."
> 
> Then again, if "intelligent" and "broker" were comfortable in the same sentence, they wouldn't have caused the Crash of '08...
Click to expand...


*They could do what they always do and pass the fees on to the clients, or they could be intelligent and absorb those fees themselves.
*
Let's examine your "idea".
I buy 200 shares of a $50 stock at Ameritrade.
I pay $9.99 in commissions.
The tax is $50. You think it'd be a good idea for Ameritrade to "absorb" the tax?
Looks like a giant loser for Ameritrade, but I'm sure you can show how it would work.
*
Then again, if "intelligent" and "broker" were comfortable in the same sentence, they wouldn't have caused the Crash of '08...*

Were you a broker in 2008? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Penelope said:


> Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.  I do find fault with it costing nothing to go to college, when people get something for free, they misuse it. Look at the rick college kids as compared to the ones who are working their way through school or taking out loans.
> 
> College needs to be available for all kids who want to go though. I do not want to see an increase in property taxes, state income taxes,  or  sales tax to pay for this or any tax burden on the tax payers of a state. I am afraid this is what is going to happen. The rich can buy favors in congress and always get out of paying taxes, the middle income can not.



*Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.
*
0.5% on stock trades is pennies? LOL!


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.  I do find fault with it costing nothing to go to college, when people get something for free, they misuse it. Look at the rick college kids as compared to the ones who are working their way through school or taking out loans.
> 
> College needs to be available for all kids who want to go though. I do not want to see an increase in property taxes, state income taxes,  or  sales tax to pay for this or any tax burden on the tax payers of a state. I am afraid this is what is going to happen. The rich can buy favors in congress and always get out of paying taxes, the middle income can not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.
> *
> 0.5% on stock trades is pennies? LOL!
Click to expand...


$0.005 per transaction?  A fraction of a penny, actually.


----------



## Penelope

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.  I do find fault with it costing nothing to go to college, when people get something for free, they misuse it. Look at the rick college kids as compared to the ones who are working their way through school or taking out loans.
> 
> College needs to be available for all kids who want to go though. I do not want to see an increase in property taxes, state income taxes,  or  sales tax to pay for this or any tax burden on the tax payers of a state. I am afraid this is what is going to happen. The rich can buy favors in congress and always get out of paying taxes, the middle income can not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.
> *
> 0.5% on stock trades is pennies? LOL!
Click to expand...


Depends on how much on puts in. I really could careless about the rich elites.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.  I do find fault with it costing nothing to go to college, when people get something for free, they misuse it. Look at the rick college kids as compared to the ones who are working their way through school or taking out loans.
> 
> College needs to be available for all kids who want to go though. I do not want to see an increase in property taxes, state income taxes,  or  sales tax to pay for this or any tax burden on the tax payers of a state. I am afraid this is what is going to happen. The rich can buy favors in congress and always get out of paying taxes, the middle income can not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.
> *
> 0.5% on stock trades is pennies? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $0.005 per transaction?  A fraction of a penny, actually.
Click to expand...



*$0.005 per transaction?
*
Clueless and can't read?

*Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.*
This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
s, and other speculators of* 0.5% on stock trades* (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a* 0.1% fee 
on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives*. It has been estimated that this provision could 
raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges
and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the 
middle class of this country.

Sanders just submitted college for all bill. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Penelope said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.  I do find fault with it costing nothing to go to college, when people get something for free, they misuse it. Look at the rick college kids as compared to the ones who are working their way through school or taking out loans.
> 
> College needs to be available for all kids who want to go though. I do not want to see an increase in property taxes, state income taxes,  or  sales tax to pay for this or any tax burden on the tax payers of a state. I am afraid this is what is going to happen. The rich can buy favors in congress and always get out of paying taxes, the middle income can not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.
> *
> 0.5% on stock trades is pennies? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how much on puts in. I really could careless about the rich elites.
Click to expand...


I know. Like those rich guys putting a couple hundred into their 401K every month.
Screw them!!!


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.  I do find fault with it costing nothing to go to college, when people get something for free, they misuse it. Look at the rick college kids as compared to the ones who are working their way through school or taking out loans.
> 
> College needs to be available for all kids who want to go though. I do not want to see an increase in property taxes, state income taxes,  or  sales tax to pay for this or any tax burden on the tax payers of a state. I am afraid this is what is going to happen. The rich can buy favors in congress and always get out of paying taxes, the middle income can not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.
> *
> 0.5% on stock trades is pennies? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $0.005 per transaction?  A fraction of a penny, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *$0.005 per transaction?
> *
> Clueless and can't read?
> 
> *Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.*
> This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
> s, and other speculators of* 0.5% on stock trades* (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a* 0.1% fee
> on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives*. It has been estimated that this provision could
> raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges
> and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the
> middle class of this country.
> 
> Sanders just submitted college for all bill. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...


Speculators.  Maybe if you were smart enough to choose your own stocks...


----------



## Penelope

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.  I do find fault with it costing nothing to go to college, when people get something for free, they misuse it. Look at the rick college kids as compared to the ones who are working their way through school or taking out loans.
> 
> College needs to be available for all kids who want to go though. I do not want to see an increase in property taxes, state income taxes,  or  sales tax to pay for this or any tax burden on the tax payers of a state. I am afraid this is what is going to happen. The rich can buy favors in congress and always get out of paying taxes, the middle income can not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.
> *
> 0.5% on stock trades is pennies? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how much on puts in. I really could careless about the rich elites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. Like those rich guys putting a couple hundred into their 401K every month.
> Screw them!!!
Click to expand...


No not talking about them. I'm talking about the ones putting  a few million in a month. Or likes Bill Gates , makes more in a min of sleep than most of us make in a lifetime.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.  I do find fault with it costing nothing to go to college, when people get something for free, they misuse it. Look at the rick college kids as compared to the ones who are working their way through school or taking out loans.
> 
> College needs to be available for all kids who want to go though. I do not want to see an increase in property taxes, state income taxes,  or  sales tax to pay for this or any tax burden on the tax payers of a state. I am afraid this is what is going to happen. The rich can buy favors in congress and always get out of paying taxes, the middle income can not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.
> *
> 0.5% on stock trades is pennies? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $0.005 per transaction?  A fraction of a penny, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *$0.005 per transaction?
> *
> Clueless and can't read?
> 
> *Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.*
> This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
> s, and other speculators of* 0.5% on stock trades* (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a* 0.1% fee
> on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives*. It has been estimated that this provision could
> raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges
> and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the
> middle class of this country.
> 
> Sanders just submitted college for all bill. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculators.  Maybe if you were smart enough to choose your own stocks...
Click to expand...


Well, if he said he was going to tax everyone's 401K and mutual fund, even morons like you would understand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Penelope said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.  I do find fault with it costing nothing to go to college, when people get something for free, they misuse it. Look at the rick college kids as compared to the ones who are working their way through school or taking out loans.
> 
> College needs to be available for all kids who want to go though. I do not want to see an increase in property taxes, state income taxes,  or  sales tax to pay for this or any tax burden on the tax payers of a state. I am afraid this is what is going to happen. The rich can buy favors in congress and always get out of paying taxes, the middle income can not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey the hedge fund group can afford this with no problem, just pennies to them.
> *
> 0.5% on stock trades is pennies? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how much on puts in. I really could careless about the rich elites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. Like those rich guys putting a couple hundred into their 401K every month.
> Screw them!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No not talking about them. I'm talking about the ones putting  a few million in a month. Or likes Bill Gates , makes more in a min of sleep than most of us make in a lifetime.
Click to expand...

*
No not talking about them.
*
So it's okay that Sanders taxes Mom and Pop.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So it's okay that Sanders taxes Mom and Pop.



You mean it's okay if Hillary's pet Goldman Sachs passes their fees on to Mom and Pop.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's okay that Sanders taxes Mom and Pop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean it's okay if Hillary's pet Goldman Sachs passes their fees on to Mom and Pop.
Click to expand...


If Mom and Pop buy or sell stock, Sanders needs their money.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your broker is an idiot.  If he's smart, he'll eat those costs himself, then write them off as a loss.  Kind of like when a retailer hides the sales tax in the cost of the widget you're buying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?  Sales taxes are not hidden in the cost of widgets.  That is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?*
> 
> I want to know which brokers are going to take tens of billions in losses every year.
> So I can short their stock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year, much less make _trillions_ so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
> 
> Y'all are ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year,
> *
> Well, Goldman made about $8 billion last year.
> I'm sure they'd be glad to "write them off as a loss", to pay this idiotic tax.
> 
> *much less make *_*trillions*_* so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
> *
> Why are you confusing profits, "make trillions", with a tax on the trades of clients?
> It's almost as if you have no clue about how this would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could work one of two ways.  They could do what they always do and pass the fees on to the clients, or they could be intelligent and absorb those fees themselves.  If they were intelligent, they could even market themselves as "the guys who don't pass the fees on to our clients."
> 
> Then again, if "intelligent" and "broker" were comfortable in the same sentence, they wouldn't have caused the Crash of '08...
Click to expand...


*They could do what they always do and pass the fees on to the clients, or they could be intelligent and absorb those fees themselves.
*
Let's examine your "idea".
I buy 200 shares of a $50 stock at Ameritrade.
I pay $9.99 in commissions.
The tax is $50. You think it'd be a good idea for Ameritrade to "absorb" the tax?
Looks like a giant loser for Ameritrade, but I'm sure you can show how it would work.
*
Then again, if "intelligent" and "broker" were comfortable in the same sentence, they wouldn't have caused the Crash of '08...*

Were you a broker in 2008? LOL!


----------



## Penelope

We need to do something about the cost of education as well. And medical care.


----------



## Penelope

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?  Sales taxes are not hidden in the cost of widgets.  That is against the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?*
> 
> I want to know which brokers are going to take tens of billions in losses every year.
> So I can short their stock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year, much less make _trillions_ so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
> 
> Y'all are ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year,
> *
> Well, Goldman made about $8 billion last year.
> I'm sure they'd be glad to "write them off as a loss", to pay this idiotic tax.
> 
> *much less make *_*trillions*_* so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
> *
> Why are you confusing profits, "make trillions", with a tax on the trades of clients?
> It's almost as if you have no clue about how this would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could work one of two ways.  They could do what they always do and pass the fees on to the clients, or they could be intelligent and absorb those fees themselves.  If they were intelligent, they could even market themselves as "the guys who don't pass the fees on to our clients."
> 
> Then again, if "intelligent" and "broker" were comfortable in the same sentence, they wouldn't have caused the Crash of '08...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They could do what they always do and pass the fees on to the clients, or they could be intelligent and absorb those fees themselves.
> *
> Let's examine your "idea".
> I buy 200 shares of a $50 stock at Ameritrade.
> I pay $9.99 in commissions.
> The tax is $50. You think it'd be a good idea for Ameritrade to "absorb" the tax?
> Looks like a giant loser for Ameritrade, but I'm sure you can show how it would work.
> *
> Then again, if "intelligent" and "broker" were comfortable in the same sentence, they wouldn't have caused the Crash of '08...*
> 
> Were you a broker in 2008? LOL!
Click to expand...


Yes, Ameritrade can do it:


The chief executive of discount brokerage firm TD Ameritrade Holding Corp AMTD.N has signed a four-year employment agreement guaranteeing an annual base salary of $900,000 and target annual cash and stock incentives of $5.6 million through October 1, 2017.

The new contract for Fredric Tomczyk, effective at the start of the company's fiscal year in October, replaces a five-year agreement signed when he became CEO in 2008, the Omaha, Nebraska-based firm said in a regulatory filing on Thursday. Terms of the new contract are largely unchanged.

Tomczyk, who played varsity ice hockey at Cornell University will be reimbursed for moving expenses related to his relocation to Canada when his employment ends with the company, according to the new contract. He currently lives in New York City and works from TD Ameritrade offices in New Jersey.

The new employment contract covers car service transportation to and from work as well as the private plane business travel coverage that was in his previous contract.

Tomczyk's 2012 pay package totaled $6.5 million, including base salary of $700,000, and stock and incentive awards of $5.8 million. He was also granted $4.8 million worth of restricted future stock for his fiscal 2012 performance.TD Ameritrade CEO Tomczyk signs new contract at $6.5 million a year

But of course I imagine he s-----ts ice cream.


----------



## baileyn45

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?
> 
> 
> 
> Over a 0.05% fee?  Not gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Over a 0.05% fee?*
> 
> Ummmmm.......
> 
> *0.5% on stock trades
> *
> Perhaps you need a math class?
> *
> It has been estimated that this provision could  raise hundreds of billions a year*
> 
> Yes, hundreds of billions a year would be a great incentive to move operations.
Click to expand...

Hundreds of billions? Some one might want to check their math. I mean .5% of the entire us economy is 90 billion.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Great news! I can't wait to get my free college!  Already have a degree but want another.


----------



## Penelope

Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08.  they are once again TOOO Big to Fail, yep.


----------



## Arianrhod

Matthew said:


> Great news! I can't wait to get my free college!  Already have a degree but want another.



An undergrad degree at a state university?  Let us know if the Sanders plan includes people who already have degrees.  Now, if you have outstanding student loans for the first degree, even Hillary's promising refi rates.





Penelope said:


> Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08.  they are once again TOOO Big to Fail, yep.



"Should have" bailed out student loans?  How would you do that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Penelope said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When the broker writes the tax off as a loss doesn't that give him a tax break?*
> 
> I want to know which brokers are going to take tens of billions in losses every year.
> So I can short their stock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year, much less make _trillions_ so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
> 
> Y'all are ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Which brokers make "tens of billions" a year,
> *
> Well, Goldman made about $8 billion last year.
> I'm sure they'd be glad to "write them off as a loss", to pay this idiotic tax.
> 
> *much less make *_*trillions*_* so that a fraction of a percentage per transaction would result in "tens of billions" a year in losses?
> *
> Why are you confusing profits, "make trillions", with a tax on the trades of clients?
> It's almost as if you have no clue about how this would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could work one of two ways.  They could do what they always do and pass the fees on to the clients, or they could be intelligent and absorb those fees themselves.  If they were intelligent, they could even market themselves as "the guys who don't pass the fees on to our clients."
> 
> Then again, if "intelligent" and "broker" were comfortable in the same sentence, they wouldn't have caused the Crash of '08...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They could do what they always do and pass the fees on to the clients, or they could be intelligent and absorb those fees themselves.
> *
> Let's examine your "idea".
> I buy 200 shares of a $50 stock at Ameritrade.
> I pay $9.99 in commissions.
> The tax is $50. You think it'd be a good idea for Ameritrade to "absorb" the tax?
> Looks like a giant loser for Ameritrade, but I'm sure you can show how it would work.
> *
> Then again, if "intelligent" and "broker" were comfortable in the same sentence, they wouldn't have caused the Crash of '08...*
> 
> Were you a broker in 2008? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Ameritrade can do it:
> 
> 
> The chief executive of discount brokerage firm TD Ameritrade Holding Corp AMTD.N has signed a four-year employment agreement guaranteeing an annual base salary of $900,000 and target annual cash and stock incentives of $5.6 million through October 1, 2017.
> 
> The new contract for Fredric Tomczyk, effective at the start of the company's fiscal year in October, replaces a five-year agreement signed when he became CEO in 2008, the Omaha, Nebraska-based firm said in a regulatory filing on Thursday. Terms of the new contract are largely unchanged.
> 
> Tomczyk, who played varsity ice hockey at Cornell University will be reimbursed for moving expenses related to his relocation to Canada when his employment ends with the company, according to the new contract. He currently lives in New York City and works from TD Ameritrade offices in New Jersey.
> 
> The new employment contract covers car service transportation to and from work as well as the private plane business travel coverage that was in his previous contract.
> 
> Tomczyk's 2012 pay package totaled $6.5 million, including base salary of $700,000, and stock and incentive awards of $5.8 million. He was also granted $4.8 million worth of restricted future stock for his fiscal 2012 performance.TD Ameritrade CEO Tomczyk signs new contract at $6.5 million a year
> 
> But of course I imagine he s-----ts ice cream.
Click to expand...


*Yes, Ameritrade can do it:
*
Ameritrade can do what? Eat a tax that's higher than their commission?


----------



## Penelope

They can all split it amongst themselves. We all know about wall street.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

baileyn45 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?
> 
> 
> 
> Over a 0.05% fee?  Not gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Over a 0.05% fee?*
> 
> Ummmmm.......
> 
> *0.5% on stock trades
> *
> Perhaps you need a math class?
> *
> It has been estimated that this provision could  raise hundreds of billions a year*
> 
> Yes, hundreds of billions a year would be a great incentive to move operations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hundreds of billions? Some one might want to check their math. I mean .5% of the entire us economy is 90 billion.
Click to expand...


What does the size of GDP have to do with a tax on stock purchases and sales?
If your "share of GDP" is $60,000 per year, does that limit your buys and sells to $60,000 a year?
I could do that much buying and selling in a single day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Penelope said:


> Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08.  they are once again TOOO Big to Fail, yep.



The banks paid all those loans back. The Treasury made tens of billions in profits on those loans.
How would loaning students more money have helped?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Penelope said:


> They can all split it amongst themselves. We all know about wall street.



You know Wall Street but you failed math. LOL!


----------



## baileyn45

Toddsterpatriot said:


> baileyn45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?
> 
> 
> 
> Over a 0.05% fee?  Not gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Over a 0.05% fee?*
> 
> Ummmmm.......
> 
> *0.5% on stock trades
> *
> Perhaps you need a math class?
> *
> It has been estimated that this provision could  raise hundreds of billions a year*
> 
> Yes, hundreds of billions a year would be a great incentive to move operations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hundreds of billions? Some one might want to check their math. I mean .5% of the entire us economy is 90 billion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the size of GDP have to do with a tax on stock purchases and sales?
> If your "share of GDP" is $60,000 per year, does that limit your buys and sells to $60,000 a year?
> I could do that much buying and selling in a single day.
Click to expand...

I understand that, I was just making a comparison. I just have hard time believing that this would result 100s of billions.


----------



## baileyn45

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08.  they are once again TOOO Big to Fail, yep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The banks paid all those loans back. The Treasury made tens of billions in profits on those loans.
> How would loaning students more money have helped?
Click to expand...

The banks paid those loans back after the fed bought their bad debt through QE.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

baileyn45 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> baileyn45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome idea! What will we do when trading operations relocate to London or Frankfurt?
> 
> 
> 
> Over a 0.05% fee?  Not gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Over a 0.05% fee?*
> 
> Ummmmm.......
> 
> *0.5% on stock trades
> *
> Perhaps you need a math class?
> *
> It has been estimated that this provision could  raise hundreds of billions a year*
> 
> Yes, hundreds of billions a year would be a great incentive to move operations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hundreds of billions? Some one might want to check their math. I mean .5% of the entire us economy is 90 billion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the size of GDP have to do with a tax on stock purchases and sales?
> If your "share of GDP" is $60,000 per year, does that limit your buys and sells to $60,000 a year?
> I could do that much buying and selling in a single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that, I was just making a comparison. I just have hard time believing that this would result 100s of billions.
Click to expand...


Well, it wouldn't, because it would cause trading firms to move offshore.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

baileyn45 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08.  they are once again TOOO Big to Fail, yep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The banks paid all those loans back. The Treasury made tens of billions in profits on those loans.
> How would loaning students more money have helped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The banks paid those loans back after the fed bought their bad debt through QE.
Click to expand...


The Fed only bought Treasuries and guaranteed MBS. Not a bad debt in the bunch.
The banks lost hundreds of billions on their bad debt. And still paid back all the TARP loans.


----------



## baileyn45

UOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 13103351, member: 29707"]





baileyn45 said:


> QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 13102955, member: 29707"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08.  they are once again TOOO Big to il, yep.
> 
> 
> 
> he banks paid all those loans back. The Treasury made tens of billions in profits on those loans.
> ow would loaning students more money have helped?
Click to expand...

Guaranteed by whom? Fannie and Freddie, who also had to be bailed out. Not a bad debt in the bunch? You must be kidding. The whole premise was to remove toxic MBS from bank balance sheets.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

baileyn45 said:


> UOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 13103351, member: 29707"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> baileyn45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 13102955, member: 29707"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should of bailed out the student loans instead of the banks in 08.  they are once again TOOO Big to il, yep.
> 
> 
> 
> he banks paid all those loans back. The Treasury made tens of billions in profits on those loans.
> ow would loaning students more money have helped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guaranteed by whom? Fannie and Freddie, who also had to be bailed out. Not a bad debt in the bunch? You must be kidding. The whole premise was to remove toxic MBS from bank balance sheets.
Click to expand...


*Guaranteed by whom? Fannie and Freddie
*
The US Treasury.

*Not a bad debt in the bunch? You must be kidding.*

If you held one of those guaranteed MBS, you would have received every interest payment, in full.
Principal too. Why would I kid about that?
*
The whole premise was to remove toxic MBS from bank balance sheets.*

You're wrong.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Arianrhod

Vigilante said:


>



And he'll pay for it by charging you for every Photoshop you post in lieu of intelligent discussion.

(Now, watch Viggi take this post seriously.)


----------



## Vigilante

Arianrhod said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he'll pay for it by charging you for every Photoshop you post in lieu of intelligent discussion.
> 
> (Now, watch Viggi take this post seriously.)
Click to expand...


Unfortunately you are too stupid to know that a "PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS"...But I expect that from a low 2 digit IQ'D subversive!


----------



## Arianrhod

Vigilante said:


> ...a "PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS"...



And when that picture contributes nothing to the discussion except "I can haz Photoshop [that somebody else made]" it suggests a thousand words might be beyond the parameters of your vocabulary.

Try posting something relevant to the topic.  Something in words.  I mean, try.  I bet you can do it.


----------



## Vigilante

Arianrhod said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...a "PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when that picture contributes nothing to the discussion except "I can haz Photoshop [that somebody else made]" it suggests a thousand words might be beyond the parameters of your vocabulary.
> 
> Try posting something relevant to the topic.  Something in words.  I mean, try.  I bet you can do it.
Click to expand...


I do what I want, you being a terrorist leftist DEMANDS I do what you want... You STILL won't understand that!


----------



## Arianrhod

Vigilante said:


> I do what I want...



Yes, you do.  And I draw what conclusions I will.


----------



## baileyn45

*Guaranteed by whom? Fannie and Freddie*
The US Treasury.

Bingo. translation the tax payers. Not the banks that originally held these "toxic assets".

*Not a bad debt in the bunch? You must be kidding.*
If you held one of those guaranteed MBS, you would have received every interest payment, in full.
Principal too. Why would I kid about that?

Sure paid for with money pumped into the banks with fed dollars.
*
The whole premise was to remove toxic MBS from bank balance sheets.*
You're wrong.

We'll have to disagree on that point. Basically you're telling me QE was used to purchase perfectly good MBS  from the banks. To what end? If they were such great investments why remove them from the banks balance sheet?

I've yet to see an economic source that doesn't cite removing toxic  MBS from bank balance sheets as a major goal of QE 1 thru 3 and operation Twist.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

baileyn45 said:


> *Guaranteed by whom? Fannie and Freddie*
> The US Treasury.
> 
> Bingo. translation the tax payers. Not the banks that originally held these "toxic assets".
> 
> *Not a bad debt in the bunch? You must be kidding.*
> If you held one of those guaranteed MBS, you would have received every interest payment, in full.
> Principal too. Why would I kid about that?
> 
> Sure paid for with money pumped into the banks with fed dollars.
> *
> The whole premise was to remove toxic MBS from bank balance sheets.*
> You're wrong.
> 
> We'll have to disagree on that point. Basically you're telling me QE was used to purchase perfectly good MBS  from the banks. To what end? If they were such great investments why remove them from the banks balance sheet?
> 
> I've yet to see an economic source that doesn't cite removing toxic  MBS from bank balance sheets as a major goal of QE 1 thru 3 and operation Twist.


*
Bingo. translation the tax payers. Not the banks that originally held these "toxic assets".
*
Yes, taxpayers guarantee these MBS, just like they guarantee US Treasuries.
*
Not the banks that originally held these "toxic assets".*

When bonds are guaranteed, it's ridiculous to claim they are toxic.

*Sure paid for with money pumped into the banks with fed dollars.*

The banks aren't paying the mortgages on these homes.
*
Basically you're telling me QE was used to purchase perfectly good MBS  from the banks.
*
From any willing sellers. The banks were increasing their guaranteed MBS positions at the same time.

*To what end?
*
To add liquidity to the banking system.
*
If they were such great investments why remove them from the banks balance sheet?*

If a bank wanted more cash, they sold. Most held their guaranteed MBS.

*I've yet to see an economic source that doesn't cite removing toxic  MBS from bank balance sheets as a major goal of QE 1 thru 3
*
_The idea behind QE is that you don’t need a printing press to add money to an ailing economy. The Fed’s usual method of fighting recessions is to push down the interest rates banks charge each other for overnight loans, which allows banks to offer cheaper loans to businesses. But the Fed cut that rate almost to zero during the financial crisis five years ago, and more was clearly needed. So the Fed began buying bonds in hopes of driving down long-term rates that are usually outside its control. It __wasn’t a new idea__, but it had never been tried on such a massive scale. In the months after the crisis, the Fed bought $1.75 trillion in bonds. In 2010, with the recovery flagging, it bought $600 billion more in what was called QE2. In __September 2012__, with joblessness stubbornly high, the bank began snapping up $85 billion a month in Treasuries and__ mortgage-backed securities__ — QE3. Unlike earlier rounds, the Fed’s purchase plan was described as open-ended, with officials saying it would continue until the labor market “improved substantially.” The idea was that reducing the bond purchases gradually — that is, tapering them off — would make clear that the central bank would continue to offer support for the economy, just at lower levels.

The Fed Eases Off - QuickTake_

No mention of toxic assets there.

*and operation Twist
*
That was selling short-term Treasuries and buying long-term Treasuries, to drop long term rates.
Nothing to do with MBS.


----------



## baileyn45

_The idea behind QE is that you don’t need a printing press to add money to an ailing economy. The Fed’s usual method of fighting recessions is to push down the interest rates banks charge each other for overnight loans, which allows banks to offer cheaper loans to businesses. But the Fed cut that rate almost to zero during the financial crisis five years ago, and more was clearly needed. So the Fed began buying bonds in hopes of driving down long-term rates that are usually outside its control. It __wasn’t a new idea__, but it had never been tried on such a massive scale. In the months after the crisis, the Fed bought $1.75 trillion in bonds. In 2010, with the recovery flagging, it bought $600 billion more in what was called QE2. In __September 2012__, with joblessness stubbornly high, the bank began snapping up $85 billion a month in Treasuries and__ mortgage-backed securities__ — QE3. Unlike earlier rounds, the Fed’s purchase plan was described as open-ended, with officials saying it would continue until the labor market “improved substantially.” The idea was that reducing the bond purchases gradually — that is, tapering them off — would make clear that the central bank would continue to offer support for the economy, just at lower levels.

No mention of toxic assets there.

Sure there is. Those very bonds the fed was buying are the "toxic assets".

"The fact that the Fed provided credit to financially troubled firms and now holds many of the bonds of these same firms on its balance sheet has caused many to question the financial strength of the Federal Reserve itself. Policymakers have expressed concerns over the amount of Fannie Mae–issued and Freddie Mac–issued mortgage-backed securities that the Fed now holds. These purchases appear financially risky because they include some of the very same assets—the so-called toxic assets—that led to the financial crisis". 

"A large portion of these QE purchases, however, removed some of the riskiest assets—Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt and MBS—from commercial banks’ balance sheets. This fact has led some to argue that the Fed designed the QE programs as a way to bail out banks, not merely as a new form of expansionary monetary policy.[10] Regardless of the true intent, the QE programs have been so controversial because they effectively exchanged cash—created out of thin air—for bank assets that had dramatically declined in value. From the perspective of banks, the QEs could be judged a success because the purchases strengthened their financial position."

Unless you believe TARP took care of the problem, in which case this economic downturn would have been dwarfed by the past Savings and loan crisis.. 
_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

baileyn45 said:


> _The idea behind QE is that you don’t need a printing press to add money to an ailing economy. The Fed’s usual method of fighting recessions is to push down the interest rates banks charge each other for overnight loans, which allows banks to offer cheaper loans to businesses. But the Fed cut that rate almost to zero during the financial crisis five years ago, and more was clearly needed. So the Fed began buying bonds in hopes of driving down long-term rates that are usually outside its control. It __wasn’t a new idea__, but it had never been tried on such a massive scale. In the months after the crisis, the Fed bought $1.75 trillion in bonds. In 2010, with the recovery flagging, it bought $600 billion more in what was called QE2. In __September 2012__, with joblessness stubbornly high, the bank began snapping up $85 billion a month in Treasuries and__ mortgage-backed securities__ — QE3. Unlike earlier rounds, the Fed’s purchase plan was described as open-ended, with officials saying it would continue until the labor market “improved substantially.” The idea was that reducing the bond purchases gradually — that is, tapering them off — would make clear that the central bank would continue to offer support for the economy, just at lower levels.
> 
> No mention of toxic assets there.
> 
> Sure there is. Those very bonds the fed was buying are the "toxic assets".
> 
> "The fact that the Fed provided credit to financially troubled firms and now holds many of the bonds of these same firms on its balance sheet has caused many to question the financial strength of the Federal Reserve itself. Policymakers have expressed concerns over the amount of Fannie Mae–issued and Freddie Mac–issued mortgage-backed securities that the Fed now holds. These purchases appear financially risky because they include some of the very same assets—the so-called toxic assets—that led to the financial crisis".
> 
> "A large portion of these QE purchases, however, removed some of the riskiest assets—Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt and MBS—from commercial banks’ balance sheets. This fact has led some to argue that the Fed designed the QE programs as a way to bail out banks, not merely as a new form of expansionary monetary policy.[10] Regardless of the true intent, the QE programs have been so controversial because they effectively exchanged cash—created out of thin air—for bank assets that had dramatically declined in value. From the perspective of banks, the QEs could be judged a success because the purchases strengthened their financial position."
> 
> Unless you believe TARP took care of the problem, in which case this economic downturn would have been dwarfed by the past Savings and loan crisis.. _



_*Sure there is. Those very bonds the fed was buying are the "toxic assets".*_

How can you say that assets guaranteed by the US government are toxic? If a bank held one of those bonds, they would get every single interest payment and the principal when it matures.

Those MBS traded above par since before the Fed started buying them. Do you know what par means?

_*A large portion of these QE purchases, however, removed some of the riskiest assets—Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt and MBS—from commercial banks’ balance sheets.* _

They were guaranteed by the Treasury before the Fed bought a single bond.
Not a single defaulted payment on any of them. Hugely profitable for the Fed.

_*Regardless of the true intent, the QE programs have been so controversial because they effectively exchanged cash—created out of thin air—for bank assets that had dramatically declined in value.* _

They were trading above par, how did they "dramatically decline in value"?

_*Unless you believe TARP took care of the problem*_

TARP added capital to the banks. QE added reserves.


----------



## baileyn45

_*Sure there is. Those very bonds the fed was buying are the "toxic assets".*_

How can you say that assets guaranteed by the US government are toxic? If a bank held one of those bonds, they would get every single interest payment and the principal when it matures.

That's nonsense. You are confusing Govt issued bonds with privately held securities. These securities were no more guaranteed by the fed govt than stocks.

Those MBS traded above par since before the Fed started buying them. Do you know what par means?

Again nonsense. I can't quite figure out what you think the "toxic assets" are. The banks held securities based on subprime mortgages, they blew up in the banks face. Those securities are as diminished now as they were in 2008. The only difference is they are now held by the fed as opposed to the banks.

_*A large portion of these QE purchases, however, removed some of the riskiest assets—Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt and MBS—from commercial banks’ balance sheets.* _

They were guaranteed by the Treasury before the Fed bought a single bond.
Not a single defaulted payment on any of them. Hugely profitable for the Fed.

Again nonsense. The privately held securities have never been guaranteed by the fed govt. Profitable for the fed?
You're mixing this up with TARP, which was hardly "hugely" profitable. Most estimates are that the fed purchased 1.7 tr in "toxic assets". While not completely worthless they are worth pennies on the dollar to this day. If you think otherwise you could buy some of them at the price before the blow up. Let me know how that works out.

_*Regardless of the true intent, the QE programs have been so controversial because they effectively exchanged cash—created out of thin air—for bank assets that had dramatically declined in value.* _

They were trading above par, how did they "dramatically decline in value"?

If they were trading above par what was the problem? This whole mess is based on the fact that the big banks had massive MBS based derivates that were in turn based on subprime mortgages which blew up in the faces of the banks. If they were never a problem this blow up would have never happened.

_*Unless you believe TARP took care of the problem*_

TARP added capital to the banks. QE added reserves.

QE purchased toxic assets from the banks. Those toxic assets now reside in the portfolio of the fed. They are no less toxic now than they were in 2008..

And by the way, up until the fed govt took control of fannie and freddie they were completely private institutions whose risk was no more guaranteed by the fed govt than your or my stock portfolio.


----------



## Onyx

Arianrhod said:


> I'll be happy to break it down further if anyone's interested but, bottom line, unless you're a hedge fund manager (and a bad one), you've got nothing to worry about.


Don't forget about the tens of millions of stockholders and venture capitalists in America. What of the competitive growing corporations and hard working small businesses that are reliant on appearing as attractive as possible in order to secure investors?

0.5% speculation tax on stock exchanges seems like a small number, but this is a huge economy, and that money is in better hands being moved around between free market capitalists, than entitled youth who are more than capable of paying for their own education.


----------



## Arianrhod

Onyx said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to break it down further if anyone's interested but, bottom line, unless you're a hedge fund manager (and a bad one), you've got nothing to worry about.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget about the tens of millions of stockholders and venture capitalists in America. What of the competitive growing corporations and hard working small businesses that are reliant on appearing as attractive as possible in order to secure investors?
> 
> 0.5% speculation tax on stock exchanges seems like a small number, but this is a huge economy, and that money is in better hands being moved around between free market capitalists, than entitled youth who are more than capable of paying for their own education.
Click to expand...


The tax is on speculators, not small businesses.  And the "entitled youth" are those who would be attending state universities...which used to be tuition-free.  Only the trust-fund babies get a free ride to Harvard.

If you're going to object to the plan, it helps to know what it's actually about.

Not to mention that a better educated America can compete in the global marketplace.  College is an investment, not just in the kids whom you resent for reasons unexplained, but in the nation.

From another perspective, college graduates who are not saddled with huge student loan debt can put their earnings into other things that drive the economy, like home ownership, investments, their own startup businesses, etc.


----------



## dblack

The states should also make sure that all those college graduates get a decent job when they graduate, eh?


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> The states should also make sure that all those college graduates get a decent job when they graduate, eh?



Interesting hypothesis.  Make your case.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

baileyn45 said:


> _*Sure there is. Those very bonds the fed was buying are the "toxic assets".*_
> 
> How can you say that assets guaranteed by the US government are toxic? If a bank held one of those bonds, they would get every single interest payment and the principal when it matures.
> 
> That's nonsense. You are confusing Govt issued bonds with privately held securities. These securities were no more guaranteed by the fed govt than stocks.
> 
> Those MBS traded above par since before the Fed started buying them. Do you know what par means?
> 
> Again nonsense. I can't quite figure out what you think the "toxic assets" are. The banks held securities based on subprime mortgages, they blew up in the banks face. Those securities are as diminished now as they were in 2008. The only difference is they are now held by the fed as opposed to the banks.
> 
> _*A large portion of these QE purchases, however, removed some of the riskiest assets—Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt and MBS—from commercial banks’ balance sheets.* _
> 
> They were guaranteed by the Treasury before the Fed bought a single bond.
> Not a single defaulted payment on any of them. Hugely profitable for the Fed.
> 
> Again nonsense. The privately held securities have never been guaranteed by the fed govt. Profitable for the fed?
> You're mixing this up with TARP, which was hardly "hugely" profitable. Most estimates are that the fed purchased 1.7 tr in "toxic assets". While not completely worthless they are worth pennies on the dollar to this day. If you think otherwise you could buy some of them at the price before the blow up. Let me know how that works out.
> 
> _*Regardless of the true intent, the QE programs have been so controversial because they effectively exchanged cash—created out of thin air—for bank assets that had dramatically declined in value.* _
> 
> They were trading above par, how did they "dramatically decline in value"?
> 
> If they were trading above par what was the problem? This whole mess is based on the fact that the big banks had massive MBS based derivates that were in turn based on subprime mortgages which blew up in the faces of the banks. If they were never a problem this blow up would have never happened.
> 
> _*Unless you believe TARP took care of the problem*_
> 
> TARP added capital to the banks. QE added reserves.
> 
> QE purchased toxic assets from the banks. Those toxic assets now reside in the portfolio of the fed. They are no less toxic now than they were in 2008..
> 
> And by the way, up until the fed govt took control of fannie and freddie they were completely private institutions whose risk was no more guaranteed by the fed govt than your or my stock portfolio.



*That's nonsense. You are confusing Govt issued bonds with privately held securities. These securities were no more guaranteed by the fed govt than stocks.
*
You're just flat out wrong.

After the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those bonds were backed by the US Treasury.
*
Again nonsense. I can't quite figure out what you think the "toxic assets" are. The banks held securities based on subprime mortgages, they blew up in the banks face.
*
You bet, banks that held bad mortgages or private label MBS based on bad mortgages lost hundreds of billions on those toxic securities. Banks that held Fannie and Freddie MBS didn't lose a dime in interest or principal.

The Fed didn't buy those crappy mortgages or crappy MBS. They did buy the ones backed by the Treasury.
*
Those securities are as diminished now as they were in 2008.
*
LOL!

Mortgage-Backed Securities, CMOs - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com

Check the link. FNMA & FMAC, all trading over 100 (par).

*If they were trading above par what was the problem?
*
The Fed wanted to boost money in the banking system and drop interest rates.
What else were they going to buy but Treasuries and guaranteed, liquid MBS?

*QE purchased toxic assets from the banks.*

QE purchased high quality assets from willing sellers. Mostly non-banks.

*And by the way, up until the fed govt took control of fannie and freddie they were completely private institutions whose risk was no more guaranteed by the fed govt than your or my stock portfolio*

Right, and after the government took over, they were guaranteed.
And after the takeover is when the Fed bought. I'm glad you finally see your error.


----------



## Onyx

Arianrhod said:


> The tax is on speculators, not small businesses.


Okay, let me simplify this for you.

When Bernie Sanders says speculation tax, he really means a tax on all transactions in the financial center

When Bernie Sanders says Wall Street, he is actually referring only to the stock market and  the hundreds of thousands of venture capitalists, shareholders, and businesses that interact with the stock market.

In other words, in order to pay for this social program, you would be taxing everyone who tries to invest in the stock market, and not only that, but that also can seriously screw with the companies that are reliant on investments, which includes small businesses and competitive growing corporations. 

Speculation taxes are not a new concept. They have been discussed forever and continuously shot down, because we had enough common sense not to fuck with the stock market by making it harder to invest and move money around.


----------



## Onyx

Arianrhod said:


> The tax is on speculators





Arianrhod said:


> If you're going to object to the plan, it helps to know what it's actually about.



I question if you know what it is about. 

Speculators? That is just a silly way of referring to people investing money into the stock market. Don't be fooled into accepting the first socialist policy you see whenever it references "wall street" either. 

Liberals hear a politician talking about "Wall Street" and they will mindlessly support whatever bill they propose next.


----------



## Onyx

Another thing.

If you are going to implement a new tax, at least have a somewhat decent reason.

There isn't really a logical reason to implement risky taxes like these. Sure,  he'll say something totally hypocritical, like how the ultra-risky tax is meant to lower the rate of high risk investments, but come on.... this is taxation because the government can, not because it needs too.

 I shouldn't of expected the American public to be for more social programs with such a tight budget. Fiscal responsibility means nothing to the morons in power, and the morons voting them into power.


----------



## Arianrhod

Onyx said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tax is on speculators
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to object to the plan, it helps to know what it's actually about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I question if you know what it is about.
> 
> Speculators? That is just a silly way of referring to people investing money into the stock market. Don't be fooled into accepting the first socialist policy you see whenever it references "wall street" either.
> 
> Liberals hear a politician talking about "Wall Street" and they will mindlessly support whatever bill they propose next.
Click to expand...


Two words: hedge funds.


----------



## Arianrhod

Onyx said:


> Another thing.
> 
> If you are going to implement a new tax, at least have a somewhat decent reason.



A tax on the profits of corporations whose sole function is to move other people's money from one pile to another, in order to restore a tuition-free state university education so that American kids can compete with kids in other developed nations may not float your boat, but you're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Two Thumbs

just another $47 Billion in debt

this year

once colleges get that "free money", tuition will once again sky rocket so it will cost, us, $60-70 billion next year.

free college but you can't afford to eat


----------



## baileyn45

"You are flat out wrong.

After the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those bonds were backed by the US Treasury."

Bingo. AFTER, the fed govt took over freddie & fannie. Before these were plain and simply bad debt held by private banks. Now they are in the portfolio of the fed.and are still not guaranteed by the fed govt of the US. The fed is not a govt entity it is a private bank. The fed govt has no obligation to pay this stuff off. It is in the portfolio of a private concern, the fed. This bad debt has not suddenly become good debt.

You bet, banks that held bad mortgages or private label MBS based on bad mortgages lost hundreds of billions on those toxic securities. Banks that held Fannie and Freddie MBS didn't lose a dime in interest or principal."

Bingo again! Fannie and Freddie were private concerns, their bad debt was purchased by another private concern, namely the fed. The lack of losses is due to the fact that the fed purchased them. No one other than the fed would have in their right mind  gone near them with out the ability to "print" the money to purchase them.

The Fed didn't buy those crappy mortgages or crappy MBS. They did buy the ones backed by the Treasury 

Nonsense. The  fed acquired massive amounts of this bad debt with "printed' money. The underlying bad debt is still there hidden in the balance sheet of the fed. Try auditing them some time..

"QE purchased high quality assets from willing sellers. Mostly non-banks".

Really? Based on what? High quality assets? Come on. 

Think about it, TARP pumped some where around $440 billion into the system. Problem solved? That would put this "crisis" below that of the savings and loan debacle.

 The fed has purchased 1.7 tr in debt held by private banks. Purchasing debt that is performing well from the banks 
accomplishes what? According to you it's all good debt. Nonsense the fed "invented" money to clear the "toxic assets"of the big banks, period.

And again please tell me what constitutes toxic assets? and where did it go? if I understand you the moment the fed govt got involved all was well, toxic assets? what toxic assets? the fed loves you.

Buying up toxic assets was the only possible thing the fed govt could do. But they're not allowed, enter the fed..

MBS were never backed by the fed govt until freddie and fannie were taken over by the fed govt. You do realize that now they reside in the portfolio of the fed. The fed govt has no obligatory responsibility to honor those debts. None. The fed is a private concern, the fed govt has no responsibility what so ever. 

age-Backed Securities, CMOs - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com

Check the link. FNMA & FMAC, all trading over 100 (par).

*If they were trading above par what was the problem?
*
"The Fed wanted to boost money in the banking system and drop interest rates.
What else were they going to buy but Treasuries and guaranteed, liquid MBS"?"

*QE purchased toxic assets from the banks.*

"QE purchased high quality assets from willing sellers. Mostly non-banks."

High quality assets? I'll ask again. What were the toxic assets? 
*And by the way, up until the fed govt took control of fannie and freddie they were completely private institutions whose risk was no more guaranteed by the fed govt than your or my stock portfolio*

Right, and after the government took over, they were guaranteed.
And after the takeover is when the Fed bought. I'm glad you finally see your error.[/QUOTE]

And some how you believe this makes bad debt good debt. Nothing changed except where the debt resides..


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states should also make sure that all those college graduates get a decent job when they graduate, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting hypothesis.  Make your case.
Click to expand...


Well it would be approximately the same case justifying the idea that the states should provide an education, right?


----------



## dblack

Two Thumbs said:


> just another $47 Billion in debt
> 
> this year
> 
> once colleges get that "free money", tuition will once again sky rocket so it will cost, us, $60-70 billion next year.
> 
> free college but you can't afford to eat



Food is next.


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states should also make sure that all those college graduates get a decent job when they graduate, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting hypothesis.  Make your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it would be approximately the same case justifying the idea that the states should provide an education, right?
Click to expand...


I'm sure you've thought this out in detail.  Explain how you think it would work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

baileyn45 said:


> "You are flat out wrong.
> 
> After the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those bonds were backed by the US Treasury."
> 
> Bingo. AFTER, the fed govt took over freddie & fannie. Before these were plain and simply bad debt held by private banks. Now they are in the portfolio of the fed.and are still not guaranteed by the fed govt of the US. The fed is not a govt entity it is a private bank. The fed govt has no obligation to pay this stuff off. It is in the portfolio of a private concern, the fed. This bad debt has not suddenly become good debt.
> 
> You bet, banks that held bad mortgages or private label MBS based on bad mortgages lost hundreds of billions on those toxic securities. Banks that held Fannie and Freddie MBS didn't lose a dime in interest or principal."
> 
> Bingo again! Fannie and Freddie were private concerns, their bad debt was purchased by another private concern, namely the fed. The lack of losses is due to the fact that the fed purchased them. No one other than the fed would have in their right mind  gone near them with out the ability to "print" the money to purchase them.
> 
> The Fed didn't buy those crappy mortgages or crappy MBS. They did buy the ones backed by the Treasury
> 
> Nonsense. The  fed acquired massive amounts of this bad debt with "printed' money. The underlying bad debt is still there hidden in the balance sheet of the fed. Try auditing them some time..
> 
> "QE purchased high quality assets from willing sellers. Mostly non-banks".
> 
> Really? Based on what? High quality assets? Come on.
> 
> Think about it, TARP pumped some where around $440 billion into the system. Problem solved? That would put this "crisis" below that of the savings and loan debacle.
> 
> The fed has purchased 1.7 tr in debt held by private banks. Purchasing debt that is performing well from the banks
> accomplishes what? According to you it's all good debt. Nonsense the fed "invented" money to clear the "toxic assets"of the big banks, period.
> 
> And again please tell me what constitutes toxic assets? and where did it go? if I understand you the moment the fed govt got involved all was well, toxic assets? what toxic assets? the fed loves you.
> 
> Buying up toxic assets was the only possible thing the fed govt could do. But they're not allowed, enter the fed..
> 
> MBS were never backed by the fed govt until freddie and fannie were taken over by the fed govt. You do realize that now they reside in the portfolio of the fed. The fed govt has no obligatory responsibility to honor those debts. None. The fed is a private concern, the fed govt has no responsibility what so ever.
> 
> age-Backed Securities, CMOs - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com
> 
> Check the link. FNMA & FMAC, all trading over 100 (par).
> 
> *If they were trading above par what was the problem?
> *
> "The Fed wanted to boost money in the banking system and drop interest rates.
> What else were they going to buy but Treasuries and guaranteed, liquid MBS"?"
> 
> *QE purchased toxic assets from the banks.*
> 
> "QE purchased high quality assets from willing sellers. Mostly non-banks."
> 
> High quality assets? I'll ask again. What were the toxic assets?
> *And by the way, up until the fed govt took control of fannie and freddie they were completely private institutions whose risk was no more guaranteed by the fed govt than your or my stock portfolio*
> 
> Right, and after the government took over, they were guaranteed.
> And after the takeover is when the Fed bought. I'm glad you finally see your error.





> And some how you believe this makes bad debt good debt. Nothing changed except where the debt resides..



*Bingo. AFTER, the fed govt took over freddie & fannie.*

Bingo. The Fed bought no MBS before the government take over.

*The fed is not a govt entity it is a private bank.*

Wrong. The Fed is part of the government.
*
The fed govt has no obligation to pay this stuff off. It is in the portfolio of a private concern, the fed. This bad debt has not suddenly become good debt.
*
The federal government now backs this debt, of course it became good debt.

*Bingo again! Fannie and Freddie were private concerns
*
Bingo. Before the government took over, they were private concerns. Not any more.

*The lack of losses is due to the fact that the fed purchased them.*

No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them.

*No one other than the fed would have in their right mind  gone near them with out the ability to "print" the money to purchase them.*

Ignored the WSJ link? LOL! Guaranteed bonds trading above par means lots of people want to purchase them.

*The fed has purchased 1.7 tr in debt held by private banks. Purchasing debt that is performing well from the banks accomplishes what?
*
Adds $1.7 trillion in reserves to the system and lowers interest rates.
*
Nonsense the fed "invented" money to clear the "toxic assets"of the big banks, period.
*
Nonsense. The banks got stuck with their toxic assets.
*
And again please tell me what constitutes toxic assets? 
*
Okay, if Merrill Lynch bought 10 mortgages and turned then into a private label (non-Fannie or Freddie) MBS and sold the MBS to Citigroup and the 10 homeowners defaulted on their loans, that could be a toxic asset.

*and where did it go?
*
Citigroup worked the mortgages out with the homeowners and they began performing (paying the mortgage) again or Citigroup foreclosed on the homes and sold them for a loss.

Now if Fannie or Freddie bought 10 basically identical mortgages and the homeowners defaulted, the buyer of the now guaranteed MBS wouldn't know, or care, because he'd get the interest and principal payments with no interruption or impairment.

If the Fed bought this second, guaranteed MBS, they aren't taking a toxic asset off of anyone's hands, because the MBS is a high quality, guaranteed, trading above par, bond.

*if I understand you the moment the fed govt got involved all was well, toxic assets? what toxic assets?
*
Yes, when someone with unlimited resources decides to guarantee something, it's no longer toxic.

*And some how you believe this makes bad debt good debt. Nothing changed except where the debt resides..
*
No, all the guaranteed debt is now good debt, whether the Fed bought it or you did.


----------



## Stephanie

that must be the first bill Ole Bernie has submitted in all them years he's been sucking a living off taxpayers in Congress. and then look at what it is. shake down the American taxpayers for something he promises. what a freaking gig these snakes have going. It's like the JOKE is on us.

the Scary thing is many people falls for it, just like they did with that bs Obama spewed all over us. I hope they like their new Transformation. living in the poorhouse can't be all bad eh?


----------



## Stephanie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> baileyn45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You are flat out wrong.
> 
> After the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those bonds were backed by the US Treasury."
> 
> Bingo. AFTER, the fed govt took over freddie & fannie. Before these were plain and simply bad debt held by private banks. Now they are in the portfolio of the fed.and are still not guaranteed by the fed govt of the US. The fed is not a govt entity it is a private bank. The fed govt has no obligation to pay this stuff off. It is in the portfolio of a private concern, the fed. This bad debt has not suddenly become good debt.
> 
> You bet, banks that held bad mortgages or private label MBS based on bad mortgages lost hundreds of billions on those toxic securities. Banks that held Fannie and Freddie MBS didn't lose a dime in interest or principal."
> 
> Bingo again! Fannie and Freddie were private concerns, their bad debt was purchased by another private concern, namely the fed. The lack of losses is due to the fact that the fed purchased them. No one other than the fed would have in their right mind  gone near them with out the ability to "print" the money to purchase them.
> 
> The Fed didn't buy those crappy mortgages or crappy MBS. They did buy the ones backed by the Treasury
> 
> Nonsense. The  fed acquired massive amounts of this bad debt with "printed' money. The underlying bad debt is still there hidden in the balance sheet of the fed. Try auditing them some time..
> 
> "QE purchased high quality assets from willing sellers. Mostly non-banks".
> 
> Really? Based on what? High quality assets? Come on.
> 
> Think about it, TARP pumped some where around $440 billion into the system. Problem solved? That would put this "crisis" below that of the savings and loan debacle.
> 
> The fed has purchased 1.7 tr in debt held by private banks. Purchasing debt that is performing well from the banks
> accomplishes what? According to you it's all good debt. Nonsense the fed "invented" money to clear the "toxic assets"of the big banks, period.
> 
> And again please tell me what constitutes toxic assets? and where did it go? if I understand you the moment the fed govt got involved all was well, toxic assets? what toxic assets? the fed loves you.
> 
> Buying up toxic assets was the only possible thing the fed govt could do. But they're not allowed, enter the fed..
> 
> MBS were never backed by the fed govt until freddie and fannie were taken over by the fed govt. You do realize that now they reside in the portfolio of the fed. The fed govt has no obligatory responsibility to honor those debts. None. The fed is a private concern, the fed govt has no responsibility what so ever.
> 
> age-Backed Securities, CMOs - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com
> 
> Check the link. FNMA & FMAC, all trading over 100 (par).
> 
> *If they were trading above par what was the problem?
> *
> "The Fed wanted to boost money in the banking system and drop interest rates.
> What else were they going to buy but Treasuries and guaranteed, liquid MBS"?"
> 
> *QE purchased toxic assets from the banks.*
> 
> "QE purchased high quality assets from willing sellers. Mostly non-banks."
> 
> High quality assets? I'll ask again. What were the toxic assets?
> *And by the way, up until the fed govt took control of fannie and freddie they were completely private institutions whose risk was no more guaranteed by the fed govt than your or my stock portfolio*
> 
> Right, and after the government took over, they were guaranteed.
> And after the takeover is when the Fed bought. I'm glad you finally see your error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some how you believe this makes bad debt good debt. Nothing changed except where the debt resides..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bingo. AFTER, the fed govt took over freddie & fannie.*
> 
> Bingo. The Fed bought no MBS before the government take over.
> 
> *The fed is not a govt entity it is a private bank.*
> 
> Wrong. The Fed is part of the government.
> *
> The fed govt has no obligation to pay this stuff off. It is in the portfolio of a private concern, the fed. This bad debt has not suddenly become good debt.
> *
> The federal government now backs this debt, of course it became good debt.
> 
> *Bingo again! Fannie and Freddie were private concerns
> *
> Bingo. Before the government took over, they were private concerns. Not any more.
> 
> *The lack of losses is due to the fact that the fed purchased them.*
> 
> No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them.
> 
> *No one other than the fed would have in their right mind  gone near them with out the ability to "print" the money to purchase them.*
> 
> Ignored the WSJ link? LOL! Guaranteed bonds trading above par means lots of people want to purchase them.
> 
> *The fed has purchased 1.7 tr in debt held by private banks. Purchasing debt that is performing well from the banks accomplishes what?
> *
> Adds $1.7 trillion in reserves to the system and lowers interest rates.
> *
> Nonsense the fed "invented" money to clear the "toxic assets"of the big banks, period.
> *
> Nonsense. The banks got stuck with their toxic assets.
> *
> And again please tell me what constitutes toxic assets?
> *
> Okay, if Merrill Lynch bought 10 mortgages and turned then into a private label (non-Fannie or Freddie) MBS and sold the MBS to Citigroup and the 10 homeowners defaulted on their loans, that could be a toxic asset.
> 
> *and where did it go?
> *
> Citigroup worked the mortgages out with the homeowners and they began performing (paying the mortgage) again or Citigroup foreclosed on the homes and sold them for a loss.
> 
> Now if Fannie or Freddie bought 10 basically identical mortgages and the homeowners defaulted, the buyer of the now guaranteed MBS wouldn't know, or care, because he'd get the interest and principal payments with no interruption or impairment.
> 
> If the Fed bought this second, guaranteed MBS, they aren't taking a toxic asset off of anyone's hands, because the MBS is a high quality, guaranteed, trading above par, bond.
> 
> *if I understand you the moment the fed govt got involved all was well, toxic assets? what toxic assets?
> *
> Yes, when someone with unlimited resources decides to guarantee something, it's no longer toxic.
> 
> *And some how you believe this makes bad debt good debt. Nothing changed except where the debt resides..
> *
> No, all the guaranteed debt is now good debt, whether the Fed bought it or you did.
Click to expand...


informative post there


----------



## Arianrhod

Stephanie said:


> that must be the first bill Ole Bernie has submitted in all them years he's been sucking a living off taxpayers in Congress. and then look at what it is. shake down the American taxpayers for something he promises. what a freaking gig these snakes have going. It's like the JOKE is on us.
> 
> the Scary thing is many people falls for it, just they did with that bs Obama spewed all over us. I hope they like their new Transformation. living in the poorhouse can't be all bad eh?



Poor Stephanie - a victim of calculated ignorance!

Bernard Sanders

Sponsored legislation: 780
Co-sponsored legislation*: 5,416

*For the benefit of the calculatedly ignorant, that means working with other people in Congress from both sides of the aisle.


The scary thing is imagining how your grammar might have benefited from a college education.


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states should also make sure that all those college graduates get a decent job when they graduate, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting hypothesis.  Make your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it would be approximately the same case justifying the idea that the states should provide an education, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you've thought this out in detail.  Explain how you think it would work.
Click to expand...


No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states should also make sure that all those college graduates get a decent job when they graduate, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting hypothesis.  Make your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it would be approximately the same case justifying the idea that the states should provide an education, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you've thought this out in detail.  Explain how you think it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
Click to expand...


You do understand that _state universities_ - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states should also make sure that all those college graduates get a decent job when they graduate, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting hypothesis.  Make your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it would be approximately the same case justifying the idea that the states should provide an education, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you've thought this out in detail.  Explain how you think it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand that _state universities_ - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?
Click to expand...


Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting hypothesis.  Make your case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it would be approximately the same case justifying the idea that the states should provide an education, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you've thought this out in detail.  Explain how you think it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand that _state universities_ - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
Click to expand...


I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities.  Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?

Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it would be approximately the same case justifying the idea that the states should provide an education, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you've thought this out in detail.  Explain how you think it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand that _state universities_ - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities.  Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?
> 
> Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.
Click to expand...


Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you've thought this out in detail.  Explain how you think it would work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand that _state universities_ - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities.  Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?
> 
> Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
Click to expand...


What's your model?  What country or countries that provide free education in order to make their students competitive also provide them with jobs (and by "provide," I assume you mean "guarantee them a job when they graduate," as opposed to "have a flourishing economy with a low unemployment rate") and food and housing (by which I assume you mean "give them a free house and free food")?

I mean, there must be a Real World country that does this outside of your vivid imagination, right?


----------



## Onyx

Arianrhod said:


> Two words: hedge funds.


Your fucking point?

If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I haven't thought about how it would work. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that _state universities_ - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities.  Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?
> 
> Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your model?  What country or countries that provide free education in order to make their students competitive also provide them with jobs (and by "provide," I assume you mean "guarantee them a job when they graduate," as opposed to "have a flourishing economy with a low unemployment rate") and food and housing (by which I assume you mean "give them a free house and free food")?
> 
> I mean, there must be a Real World country that does this outside of your vivid imagination, right?
Click to expand...


I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?


----------



## Arianrhod

Onyx said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two words: hedge funds.
> 
> 
> 
> Your fucking point?
> 
> If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.
Click to expand...


What's funny is the same people screaming "No bailout!  Let 'em die!" RE: investment banks are now weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.

Or is it only because of that Big Scary Word "socialist" that y'all have your panties in a wad?


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that _state universities_ - which is where the tuition rollback would apply - have been in existence since 1789, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities.  Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?
> 
> Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your model?  What country or countries that provide free education in order to make their students competitive also provide them with jobs (and by "provide," I assume you mean "guarantee them a job when they graduate," as opposed to "have a flourishing economy with a low unemployment rate") and food and housing (by which I assume you mean "give them a free house and free food")?
> 
> I mean, there must be a Real World country that does this outside of your vivid imagination, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
Click to expand...


I see.  You're just going to keep repeating this.

Give me an example of a country that does that or I'll assume you're stuck in an EddieBeCrazy feedback loop.


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities.  Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?
> 
> Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your model?  What country or countries that provide free education in order to make their students competitive also provide them with jobs (and by "provide," I assume you mean "guarantee them a job when they graduate," as opposed to "have a flourishing economy with a low unemployment rate") and food and housing (by which I assume you mean "give them a free house and free food")?
> 
> I mean, there must be a Real World country that does this outside of your vivid imagination, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  You're just going to keep repeating this.
Click to expand...


Until you answer it, yes. There must be some reason that you're avoiding it.

It's a perfectly valid question, one that raises important issues regarding the purpose and scope of government power.


----------



## Onyx

Arianrhod said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two words: hedge funds.
> 
> 
> 
> Your fucking point?
> 
> If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is the same people screaming "No bailout!  Let 'em die!" RE: investment banks are now weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.
> 
> Or is it only because of that Big Scary Word "socialist" that y'all have your panties in a wad?
Click to expand...


It is one thing to have a problem with the greedy side of wall street. This is not the greedy side of wallsteet. This is dealing with millions of  Americans _(lower, middle , upper )_ and businesses _(small, growing, big)_ that interact with the stock market.

Support Bernie Sanders if you want, but don't become his pawn in the process, just because he knows how to exploit your liberal sensibilities.


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear whether or not you understand that the tuition rollback would only apply to state universities.  Y'know, educational institutions founded by state governments?
> 
> Then fix your tags and we can continue this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your model?  What country or countries that provide free education in order to make their students competitive also provide them with jobs (and by "provide," I assume you mean "guarantee them a job when they graduate," as opposed to "have a flourishing economy with a low unemployment rate") and food and housing (by which I assume you mean "give them a free house and free food")?
> 
> I mean, there must be a Real World country that does this outside of your vivid imagination, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  You're just going to keep repeating this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until you answer it, yes. There must be some reason that you're avoiding it.
> 
> It's a perfectly valid question, one that raises important issues regarding the purpose and scope of government power.
Click to expand...


I'm avoiding it because it's idiotic, and because you can neither explain how (or why) it would work in theory, nor give an example outside of your "But what if the Easter Bunny really does lay eggs?" imagination where it's been realized.

Post it again.


----------



## Arianrhod

Onyx said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two words: hedge funds.
> 
> 
> 
> Your fucking point?
> 
> If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is the same people screaming "No bailout!  Let 'em die!" RE: investment banks are now weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.
> 
> Or is it only because of that Big Scary Word "socialist" that y'all have your panties in a wad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is one thing to have a problem with the greedy side of wall street. This is not the greedy side of wallsteet. This is dealing with millions of  Americans _(lower, middle , upper )_ and businesses _(small, growing, big)_ that interact with the stock market.
> 
> Support Bernie Sanders if you want, but don't become his pawn in the process, just because he knows how to exploit your liberal sensibilities.
Click to expand...


Then the question is how they interact with the stock market, and whether the stock market is anything more or less than Vegas, only at a slower pace.

Y'all holler about insurers' role as middlemen in health provision (and rightfully so), but you defend a middleman (Wall Street) that can make or break a company of any size by rumor and innuendo.

Small investors should be able to put their money into Mom&Pop's Small Local Business without going through a middleman.  And, guess what?  They are.


----------



## Stephanie

Onyx said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two words: hedge funds.
> 
> 
> 
> Your fucking point?
> 
> If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is the same people screaming "No bailout!  Let 'em die!" RE: investment banks are now weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.
> 
> Or is it only because of that Big Scary Word "socialist" that y'all have your panties in a wad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is one thing to have a problem with the greedy side of wall street. This is not the greedy side of wallsteet. This is dealing with millions of  Americans _(lower, middle , upper )_ and businesses _(small, growing, big)_ that interact with the stock market.
> 
> Support Bernie Sanders if you want, but don't become his pawn in the process, just because he knows how to exploit your liberal sensibilities.
Click to expand...


they can't seem to separate that when they JOIN the cult of the Democrat party. it's a little scary. look what Obama did to them.


----------



## Arianrhod

Stephanie said:


> look what Obama did to them.



Taught us that a sentence begins with an upper-case letter?  Some of us learned that on our own.


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your model?  What country or countries that provide free education in order to make their students competitive also provide them with jobs (and by "provide," I assume you mean "guarantee them a job when they graduate," as opposed to "have a flourishing economy with a low unemployment rate") and food and housing (by which I assume you mean "give them a free house and free food")?
> 
> I mean, there must be a Real World country that does this outside of your vivid imagination, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to get a handle on what kind of political philosophy is at work here. If government should be responsible for providing us with health care and education, shouldn't they also provide us with food and housing? Gainful employment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  You're just going to keep repeating this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until you answer it, yes. There must be some reason that you're avoiding it.
> 
> It's a perfectly valid question, one that raises important issues regarding the purpose and scope of government power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm avoiding it because it's idiotic, and because you can neither explain how (or why) it would work in theory, nor give an example outside of your "But what if the Easter Bunny really does lay eggs?" imagination where it's been realized.
> 
> Post it again.
Click to expand...


So, you're conceding that you can't - or rather, don't want to - answer it? 

You'd make a good politician. When confronted with something you don't want to talk about, you simply try to change the topic and dodge. It's chickenshit, but it's par for the course.


----------



## il Tupe

It has to start with costs. Administration has become bloated. Americans universities are not structured for free education. Cut all the VPs first.


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> So, you're conceding that you can't - or rather, don't want to - answer it?



It's like the discussion we've had about health insurance.  You don't like my answers, so you pretend I haven't answered you.  Then you claim "it's not a discussion."  Then you pop up in another thread and make the same claims.

State universities in the U.S. used to be tuition-free.  That didn't result in your Easter Bunny scenario in the 1950s-1970s, and you can't explain why you believe it would now.

So you just keep asking your "What if the Easter Bunny really did lay eggs?" question.  I'm going to go talk to the adults.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two words: hedge funds.
> 
> 
> 
> Your fucking point?
> 
> If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is the same people screaming "No bailout!  Let 'em die!" RE: investment banks are now weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.
> 
> Or is it only because of that Big Scary Word "socialist" that y'all have your panties in a wad?
Click to expand...


*weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.*

Yeah, hundreds of billions in new taxes that impact my investment accounts is something I'm against.
I guess the lost jobs will just be a bonus.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two words: hedge funds.
> 
> 
> 
> Your fucking point?
> 
> If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is the same people screaming "No bailout!  Let 'em die!" RE: investment banks are now weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.
> 
> Or is it only because of that Big Scary Word "socialist" that y'all have your panties in a wad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.*
> 
> Yeah, hundreds of billions in new taxes that impact my investment accounts is something I'm against.
> I guess the lost jobs will just be a bonus.
Click to expand...


There you are with your "hundreds of billions" again.  Make sure to click your heels three times before you post it again.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Sanders is a decent, honorable, man of good faith – and as a consequence unqualified to be president.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two words: hedge funds.
> 
> 
> 
> Your fucking point?
> 
> If you looked at your own copy and paste, it isn't just hedge funds. It is ALL stock transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is the same people screaming "No bailout!  Let 'em die!" RE: investment banks are now weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.
> 
> Or is it only because of that Big Scary Word "socialist" that y'all have your panties in a wad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *weeping crocodile tears about the Poor Widdle Speculators having to pay a small fee per transaction to the government that bailed them out in the first place.*
> 
> Yeah, hundreds of billions in new taxes that impact my investment accounts is something I'm against.
> I guess the lost jobs will just be a bonus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you are with your "hundreds of billions" again.  Make sure to click your heels three times before you post it again.
Click to expand...


*Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.*
This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
s, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee 
on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. *It has been estimated that this provision could 
raise hundreds of billions a year *which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges
and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the 
middle class of this country.

Sanders just submitted college for all bill. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Can I laugh at your idiocy when you disavow your own post?


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're conceding that you can't - or rather, don't want to - answer it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like the discussion we've had about health insurance.  You don't like my answers, so you pretend I haven't answered you.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. You haven't answered at all. You simply pretend I asked something else, or made claims that I never did, and go off on a tangent. It's deliberate evasion. It's essentially conceding that your views aren't defensible.  



> State universities in the U.S. used to be tuition-free.  That didn't result in your Easter Bunny scenario in the 1950s-1970s, and you can't explain why you believe it would now.



The Easter Bunny scenario is your diversion. I'm asking for your conception of the purpose of government, or, if that's too abstract for you, I'm asking you to say why we should provide healthcare and education and and not provide the other necessities of life. But you are afraid of the answer. Because there isn't a good one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Sanders is a decent, honorable, man of good faith – and as a consequence unqualified to be president.



You're right about unqualified.


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're conceding that you can't - or rather, don't want to - answer it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like the discussion we've had about health insurance.  You don't like my answers, so you pretend I haven't answered you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You haven't answered at all.
Click to expand...


See, there you go again.

Explain why a tuition-free education didn't lead to your Easter Bunny scenario in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s.


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're conceding that you can't - or rather, don't want to - answer it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like the discussion we've had about health insurance.  You don't like my answers, so you pretend I haven't answered you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You haven't answered at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, there you go again.
> 
> Explain why a tuition-free education didn't lead to your Easter Bunny scenario in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s.
Click to expand...


I'm not making that claim. At all. So there's nothing to explain.

And... you still haven't answered the question. Where does it end? If government is responsible for providing us with "free" education and health care, why shouldn't it provide us with "free" food and shelter? Or, do you think that it should provide those things as well? What limits do think should exist on government power? Any at all?

I have a ten dollar bet that you'll dodge again. You have a chance to make me pay.


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why a tuition-free education didn't lead to your Easter Bunny scenario in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making that claim. At all. So there's nothing to explain.
Click to expand...


Then what's this?


dblack said:


> If government is responsible for providing us with "free" education and health care, why shouldn't it provide us with "free" food and shelter?



???


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why a tuition-free education didn't lead to your Easter Bunny scenario in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making that claim. At all. So there's nothing to explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what's this?
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If government is responsible for providing us with "free" education and health care, why shouldn't it provide us with "free" food and shelter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
Click to expand...


Payday! (thx)

That's the same question I've been asking you over and over again. I'm not asking if it's viable (I think it's utterly un-viable), and I'm not predicting that anything will necessarily "lead" to anything else (I'm not making the slippery-slope argument). I'm just trying to understand the underlying political philosophy. Because, ultimately, that's what guides policy. That's what we vote for. We can't know the exact issues and laws that a candidate, or party, will be asked to address. But we can ask questions about the premises they have regarding government. And with that we can have some idea of what to expect when the unexpected arises.


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why a tuition-free education didn't lead to your Easter Bunny scenario in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making that claim. At all. So there's nothing to explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what's this?
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If government is responsible for providing us with "free" education and health care, why shouldn't it provide us with "free" food and shelter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Payday! (thx)
> 
> That's the same question I've been asking you over and over again. I'm not asking if it's viable (I think it's utterly un-viable), and I'm not predicting that anything will necessarily "lead" to anything else (I'm not making the slippery-slope argument). I'm just trying to understand the underlying political philosophy. Because, ultimately, that's what guides policy. That's what we vote for. We can't know the exact issues and laws that a candidate, or party, will be asked to address. But we can ask questions about the premises they have regarding government. And with that we can have some idea of what to expect when the unexpected arises.
Click to expand...


And I'm saying "historically it didn't happen last time, so it's not clear to me why you believe it will happen now."


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why a tuition-free education didn't lead to your Easter Bunny scenario in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making that claim. At all. So there's nothing to explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what's this?
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If government is responsible for providing us with "free" education and health care, why shouldn't it provide us with "free" food and shelter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Payday! (thx)
> 
> That's the same question I've been asking you over and over again. I'm not asking if it's viable (I think it's utterly un-viable), and I'm not predicting that anything will necessarily "lead" to anything else (I'm not making the slippery-slope argument). I'm just trying to understand the underlying political philosophy. Because, ultimately, that's what guides policy. That's what we vote for. We can't know the exact issues and laws that a candidate, or party, will be asked to address. But we can ask questions about the premises they have regarding government. And with that we can have some idea of what to expect when the unexpected arises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm saying "historically it didn't happen last time, so it's not clear to me why you believe it will happen now."
Click to expand...


Wow.. you're utterly dense! I just told I don't believe that it will - in the very paragraph you're responding to. I can't decide if this is an honest mental block for you, or you're just being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> I just told I don't believe that it will.



So you just answered your own question.

What would you like to talk about next?


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just told I don't believe that it will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you just answered your own question.
> 
> What would you like to talk about next?
Click to expand...


I'd like you to explain why we should provide a free college education but not free food or housing. Aren't food and shelter even more important than a college education? 

But for some reason you won't. What are you so afraid of?


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> I'd like you to explain why we should provide a free college education but not free food or housing. Aren't food and shelter even more important than a college education?



Are you unaware of the safety nets extant in the U.S.?


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like you to explain why we should provide a free college education but not free food or housing. Aren't food and shelter even more important than a college education?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of the safety nets extant in the U.S.?
Click to expand...


Coward.


----------



## rightwinger

My plan would provide free online college courses to anyone who wants to take them. All accredited universities would be required to accept them.


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like you to explain why we should provide a free college education but not free food or housing. Aren't food and shelter even more important than a college education?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of the safety nets extant in the U.S.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coward.
Click to expand...


Is not a synonym for "knowledgeable."  I think I see the problem here...


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> My plan would provide free online college courses to anyone who wants to take them. All accredited universities would be required to accept them.



Just another Liberal thinking someone is owed something they don't deserve.


----------



## rightwinger

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan would provide free online college courses to anyone who wants to take them. All accredited universities would be required to accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another Liberal thinking someone is owed something they don't deserve.
Click to expand...


We decided people deserve an education over a hundred years ago

Used to be eighth grade
Then it became High School
Now it needs to be college


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan would provide free online college courses to anyone who wants to take them. All accredited universities would be required to accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another Liberal thinking someone is owed something they don't deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We decided people deserve an education over a hundred years ago
> 
> Used to be eighth grade
> Then it became High School
> Now it needs to be college
Click to expand...


We?  You mean you bleeding hearts who thing someone else should foot the bill for it.  You don't count for shit in a ******'s back yard. You have less value.


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan would provide free online college courses to anyone who wants to take them. All accredited universities would be required to accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another Liberal thinking someone is owed something they don't deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We decided people deserve an education over a hundred years ago
> 
> Used to be eighth grade
> Then it became High School
> Now it needs to be college
Click to expand...


They're welcome to go to college if THEY can pay for it. It's not my job to pay for college for someone else's kid because the worthless SOB won't provide for his own kids.  I didn't create them.  They aren't my responsibility.


----------



## rightwinger

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan would provide free online college courses to anyone who wants to take them. All accredited universities would be required to accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another Liberal thinking someone is owed something they don't deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We decided people deserve an education over a hundred years ago
> 
> Used to be eighth grade
> Then it became High School
> Now it needs to be college
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We?  You mean you bleeding hearts who thing someone else should foot the bill for it.  You don't count for shit in a ******'s back yard. You have less value.
Click to expand...

Yes...that is what is known as ..We the People
A free public school education is something we have cherished for over a century


----------



## rightwinger

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan would provide free online college courses to anyone who wants to take them. All accredited universities would be required to accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another Liberal thinking someone is owed something they don't deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We decided people deserve an education over a hundred years ago
> 
> Used to be eighth grade
> Then it became High School
> Now it needs to be college
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're welcome to go to college if THEY can pay for it. It's not my job to pay for college for someone else's kid because the worthless SOB won't provide for his own kids.  I didn't create them.  They aren't my responsibility.
Click to expand...


Assholes like yourself said the same thing about grammar school in the 19th century


----------



## dblack

I wonder if anyone else supporting Bernie's free college for all program is willing to answer my question? How do you decide which things government should provide for us, and which it shouldn't?


----------



## Toro

What a horribly bad idea.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> It's not my job to pay for college for someone else's kid...



How long have you been a hedge-fund manager?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my job to pay for college for someone else's kid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long have you been a hedge-fund manager?
Click to expand...


Everyone is exempt, except hedge funds? Link?


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my job to pay for college for someone else's kid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long have you been a hedge-fund manager?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is exempt, except hedge funds? Link?
Click to expand...


From what Conservative65 just said?  That's the "How many refugees are you hosting in your guest room?" game.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Nothing involving cost is free.  Someone pays for it.



Yep. 

Society pays for it, and gains the benefits of an educated populace.

Other people pay for the training of our military personnel, or do you think they need to pay for and attend an academy to learn their craft too?


----------



## Two Thumbs

dblack said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> just another $47 Billion in debt
> 
> this year
> 
> once colleges get that "free money", tuition will once again sky rocket so it will cost, us, $60-70 billion next year.
> 
> free college but you can't afford to eat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Food is next.
Click to expand...

Then water
then housing


----------



## Two Thumbs

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing involving cost is free.  Someone pays for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Society pays for it, and gains the benefits of an educated populace.
> 
> Other people pay for the training of our military personnel, or do you think they need to pay for and attend an academy to learn their craft too?
Click to expand...



I'd explain how dumb that is, but you're to dumb to get the explanation.

anyone still using the military as an excuse......


----------



## Arianrhod

Two Thumbs said:


> I'd explain how dumb that is, but you're *to* (sic.) dumb to get the explanation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my job to pay for college for someone else's kid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long have you been a hedge-fund manager?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is exempt, except hedge funds? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what Conservative65 just said?  That's the "How many refugees are you hosting in your guest room?" game.
Click to expand...


From what you said.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Two Thumbs said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing involving cost is free.  Someone pays for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Society pays for it, and gains the benefits of an educated populace.
> 
> Other people pay for the training of our military personnel, or do you think they need to pay for and attend an academy to learn their craft too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd explain how dumb that is, but you're to dumb to get the explanation.
> 
> anyone still using the military as an excuse......
Click to expand...


First of all when you use only part of a quote you've lie by omission.  I know from experience that is a favorite ploy of conservatives, and most favored by the dumbest of the dumb.

That said both are service men and women and college educated men and women contribute to our society with the education and training they receive from the taxes we all pay.

That you're too dumb to understand that is sad, that you lie about ti confirms you are and asshole.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my job to pay for college for someone else's kid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long have you been a hedge-fund manager?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is exempt, except hedge funds? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what Conservative65 just said?  That's the "How many refugees are you hosting in your guest room?" game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what you said.
Click to expand...


What I said was based on what he said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my job to pay for college for someone else's kid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long have you been a hedge-fund manager?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is exempt, except hedge funds? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what Conservative65 just said?  That's the "How many refugees are you hosting in your guest room?" game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said was based on what he said.
Click to expand...


You seem to be under the impression that only hedge funds would pay Bernie's stupid tax.
Any proof others would be exempt?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Arianrhod said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd explain how dumb that is, but you're *to* (sic.) dumb to get the explanation.
Click to expand...







Mary chirstmas


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long have you been a hedge-fund manager?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is exempt, except hedge funds? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what Conservative65 just said?  That's the "How many refugees are you hosting in your guest room?" game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said was based on what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that only hedge funds would pay Bernie's stupid tax.
> Any proof others would be exempt?
Click to expand...


Conservative65 seems to think he'll need to whip out his checkbook and pay some stranger's kid's tuition at Harvard.  I'd call that a more profound issue that needs to be addressed first.  If you want in on that conversation, I'd recommend you bring yourself up to speed.


----------



## Arianrhod

Two Thumbs said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd explain how dumb that is, but you're *to* (sic.) dumb to get the explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mary chirstmas
Click to expand...


At least you have a cents of Yuma.  I just found it ironic in context.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Wry Catcher said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing involving cost is free.  Someone pays for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Society pays for it, and gains the benefits of an educated populace.
> 
> Other people pay for the training of our military personnel, or do you think they need to pay for and attend an academy to learn their craft too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd explain how dumb that is, but you're to dumb to get the explanation.
> 
> anyone still using the military as an excuse......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all when you use only part of a quote you've lie by omission.  I know from experience that is a favorite ploy of conservatives, and most favored by the dumbest of the dumb.
> 
> That said both are service men and women and college educated men and women contribute to our society with the education and training they receive from the taxes we all pay.
> 
> That you're too dumb to understand that is sad, that you lie about ti confirms you are and asshole.
Click to expand...

I didn't use part of your quote, so you're lying from the jump, but that's not new.

the next part is jibberish

the part after that is also ignorant jibberish as the military protects the country while someone with a degree can end up flipping burgers or be the C- student that's still a doctor.

and everyone with a job pays taxes, don't need a degree to do that.



you might want to try thinking ahead for once


----------



## Unkotare

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing involving cost is free.  Someone pays for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Society pays for it, and gains the benefits of an educated populace.
> 
> Other people pay for the training of our military personnel, or do you think they need to pay for and attend an academy to learn their craft too?
Click to expand...






Worst lib-dance, Logic-free post of the day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is exempt, except hedge funds? Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what Conservative65 just said?  That's the "How many refugees are you hosting in your guest room?" game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said was based on what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that only hedge funds would pay Bernie's stupid tax.
> Any proof others would be exempt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative65 seems to think he'll need to whip out his checkbook and pay some stranger's kid's tuition at Harvard.  I'd call that a more profound issue that needs to be addressed first.  If you want in on that conversation, I'd recommend you bring yourself up to speed.
Click to expand...


I'm more interested in your older claim that ordinary folk are exempt from the stock tax.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Unkotare said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing involving cost is free.  Someone pays for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Society pays for it, and gains the benefits of an educated populace.
> 
> Other people pay for the training of our military personnel, or do you think they need to pay for and attend an academy to learn their craft too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worst lib-dance, Logic-free post of the day.
Click to expand...


Once again, a bit over your head.  Sad, but expected.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing involving cost is free.  Someone pays for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Society pays for it, and gains the benefits of an educated populace.
Click to expand...


Considering the product modern American education is turning out, it is arguable whether taxpayers should pay for it, or that it is anywhere near the benefit higher education was in the past..



Wry Catcher said:


> Other people pay for the training of our military personnel, or do you think they need to pay for and attend an academy to learn their craft too?



Maintaining the military is a Constitutional mandate.  Providing "free" education is not.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Two Thumbs said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing involving cost is free.  Someone pays for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Society pays for it, and gains the benefits of an educated populace.
> 
> Other people pay for the training of our military personnel, or do you think they need to pay for and attend an academy to learn their craft too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd explain how dumb that is, but you're to dumb to get the explanation.
> 
> anyone still using the military as an excuse......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all when you use only part of a quote you've lie by omission.  I know from experience that is a favorite ploy of conservatives, and most favored by the dumbest of the dumb.
> 
> That said both are service men and women and college educated men and women contribute to our society with the education and training they receive from the taxes we all pay.
> 
> That you're too dumb to understand that is sad, that you lie about ti confirms you are and asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't use part of your quote, so you're lying from the jump, but that's not new.
> 
> the next part is jibberish
> 
> the part after that is also ignorant jibberish as the military protects the country while someone with a degree can end up flipping burgers or be the C- student that's still a doctor.
> 
> and everyone with a job pays taxes, don't need a degree to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> you might want to try thinking ahead for once
Click to expand...


Mea culpa, you did post my entire comment.  That said your spin is utter bullshit.

Yes, the military does protect us, but I spent the better part of active duty on a DD and never saw combat.  Not everyone with a degree flips burgers, some end up in the NSA, CIA, FBI, ATF and other agencies State and Local which provide protection to American Citizens.  Others are medical doctors, researchers, teachers, social workers, parole and probation agents and inspectors who keep our air and water clean and safe and food safe to eat.


----------



## Arianrhod

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Maintaining the military is a Constitutional mandate.  Providing "free" education is not.



Yay, let's turn the U.S. into one of these countries: Child Soldiers Worldwide


----------



## Unkotare

Wry Catcher said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing involving cost is free.  Someone pays for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Society pays for it, and gains the benefits of an educated populace.
> 
> Other people pay for the training of our military personnel, or do you think they need to pay for and attend an academy to learn their craft too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worst lib-dance, Logic-free post of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, a bit over your head.  Sad, but expected.
Click to expand...



Keep making it worse for yourself, dope.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Unkotare said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing involving cost is free.  Someone pays for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Society pays for it, and gains the benefits of an educated populace.
> 
> Other people pay for the training of our military personnel, or do you think they need to pay for and attend an academy to learn their craft too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worst lib-dance, Logic-free post of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, a bit over your head.  Sad, but expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep making it worse for yourself, dope.
Click to expand...


Usually when one signs their post they do so on a different line, see how below:

Keep making it worse for yourself.

Very truly yours,

dope.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Wry Catcher said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing involving cost is free.  Someone pays for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Society pays for it, and gains the benefits of an educated populace.
> 
> Other people pay for the training of our military personnel, or do you think they need to pay for and attend an academy to learn their craft too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd explain how dumb that is, but you're to dumb to get the explanation.
> 
> anyone still using the military as an excuse......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all when you use only part of a quote you've lie by omission.  I know from experience that is a favorite ploy of conservatives, and most favored by the dumbest of the dumb.
> 
> That said both are service men and women and college educated men and women contribute to our society with the education and training they receive from the taxes we all pay.
> 
> That you're too dumb to understand that is sad, that you lie about ti confirms you are and asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't use part of your quote, so you're lying from the jump, but that's not new.
> 
> the next part is jibberish
> 
> the part after that is also ignorant jibberish as the military protects the country while someone with a degree can end up flipping burgers or be the C- student that's still a doctor.
> 
> and everyone with a job pays taxes, don't need a degree to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> you might want to try thinking ahead for once
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mea culpa, you did post my entire comment.  That said your spin is utter bullshit.
> 
> Yes, the military does protect us, but I spent the better part of active duty on a DD and never saw combat.  Not everyone with a degree flips burgers, some end up in the NSA, CIA, FBI, ATF and other agencies State and Local which provide protection to American Citizens.  Others are medical doctors, researchers, teachers, social workers, parole and probation agents and inspectors who keep our air and water clean and safe and food safe to eat.
Click to expand...

how does that excuse adding $50 billon in debt?

why do you think it's ok to force people to pay?

why do you support something you know is going to makes things worse?


----------



## rightwinger

dblack said:


> I wonder if anyone else supporting Bernie's free college for all program is willing to answer my question? How do you decide which things government should provide for us, and which it shouldn't?


That's a good question

Some things are best provided as an individual. Others are more efficient if done collectively by the government
We have traditionally considered a free education as a benefit not just to the individual but to society as a whole


----------



## rightwinger

There was a time we provided education up through eighth grade. After eigth grade you were qualified to go out and get a job you could support a family on

Then a high school education was needed to get a job you could support yourself on....we provided a high school education to all

Now, a college education ( or technical training) is needed to get a job you can support yourself on


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

rightwinger said:


> There was a time we provided education up through eighth grade. After eigth grade you were qualified to go out and get a job you could support a family on
> 
> Then a high school education was needed to get a job you could support yourself on....we provided a high school education to all
> 
> Now, a college education ( or technical training) is needed to get a job you can support yourself on



So, where are the jobs?  Why are all the jobs created under the Obama administration going to illegals and imports?


----------



## rightwinger

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time we provided education up through eighth grade. After eigth grade you were qualified to go out and get a job you could support a family on
> 
> Then a high school education was needed to get a job you could support yourself on....we provided a high school education to all
> 
> Now, a college education ( or technical training) is needed to get a job you can support yourself on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where are the jobs?  Why are all the jobs created under the Obama administration going to illegals and imports?
Click to expand...

I would bother answering if it were remotely true


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time we provided education up through eighth grade. After eigth grade you were qualified to go out and get a job you could support a family on
> 
> Then a high school education was needed to get a job you could support yourself on....we provided a high school education to all
> 
> Now, a college education ( or technical training) is needed to get a job you can support yourself on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where are the jobs?  Why are all the jobs created under the Obama administration going to illegals and imports?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would bother answering if it were remotely true
Click to expand...


No, you just can't.  It undermines your premise.


----------



## Unkotare

America's public schools are 'free,' and guaranteed to all youngsters up to a certain age. America's public schools are frequently compared unfavorably with those in other countries.

America's universities are not 'free' or guaranteed to all, and they are BY FAR the very BEST in the world.

How hard is this to understand?


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> ...
> 
> Now, a college education ( or technical training) is needed to get a job you can support yourself on




That is not true.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> America's public schools are 'free,' and guaranteed to all youngsters up to a certain age. America's public schools are frequently compared unfavorably with those in other countries.
> 
> America's universities are not 'free' and guaranteed to all, and they are BY FAR the very BEST in the world.
> 
> How hard is this to understand?


What does their funding have to do with it?

Our universities are becoming out of reach for many working Americans. Society benefits from an educated workforce


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, a college education ( or technical training) is needed to get a job you can support yourself on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true.
Click to expand...


For the most part, it is
Note that I said college or technical training. The days of getting a good paying job out of high school are over


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> America's public schools are 'free,' and guaranteed to all youngsters up to a certain age. America's public schools are frequently compared unfavorably with those in other countries.
> 
> America's universities are not 'free' and guaranteed to all, and they are BY FAR the very BEST in the world.
> 
> How hard is this to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> What does their funding have to do with it?
Click to expand...


It's what competition has to do with it. I know it's a difficult concept for liberals.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, a college education ( or technical training) is needed to get a job you can support yourself on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the most part, it is
> Note that I said college or technical training. The days of getting a good paying job out of high school are over
Click to expand...







I noticed you tried to hedge your bet, and I notice you are still wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> America's public schools are 'free,' and guaranteed to all youngsters up to a certain age. America's public schools are frequently compared unfavorably with those in other countries.
> 
> America's universities are not 'free' and guaranteed to all, and they are BY FAR the very BEST in the world.
> 
> How hard is this to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our universities are becoming out of reach for many working Americans. ........e
Click to expand...


No, they are not.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, a college education ( or technical training) is needed to get a job you can support yourself on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the most part, it is
> Note that I said college or technical training. The days of getting a good paying job out of high school are over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you tried to hedge your bet, and I notice you are still wrong.
Click to expand...


The market has evolved. The days of getting a good job off of a High School education are over

Our society has to adapt to a new market

Making higher education out of reach for the masses is not in our best interest.......Sanders realizes that


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, a college education ( or technical training) is needed to get a job you can support yourself on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the most part, it is
> Note that I said college or technical training. The days of getting a good paying job out of high school are over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you tried to hedge your bet, and I notice you are still wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market has evolved. The days of getting a good job off of a High School education are over
Click to expand...




No they aren't. Lots of people still do so.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, a college education ( or technical training) is needed to get a job you can support yourself on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the most part, it is
> Note that I said college or technical training. The days of getting a good paying job out of high school are over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you tried to hedge your bet, and I notice you are still wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Making higher education out of reach for the masses ....
Click to expand...




It's not.


----------



## rightwinger

To understand the feeling of crisis that many see in higher education right now, it’s useful to start with some figures from 40 years ago. In 1974, the median American family earned just under $13,000 a year. A new home could be had for $36,000, an average new car for $4,400. Attending a four-year private college cost around $2,000 a year: affordable, with some scrimping, to even median earners. As for public university, it was a bargain at $510 a year. To put these figures in current dollars, we’re talking about median family income of $62,000, a house for $174,000 and a sticker price of $21,300 for the car, $10,300 for the private university and $2,500 for the public one.

A lot has changed since then. Median family income has risen slightly, to about $64,000, while median home prices have increased by about two-thirds. (Car prices have remained steady.) But the real outlier is higher education.* Tuition at a private university is now roughly three times as expensive as it was in 1974, costing an average of $31,000 a year; public tuition, at $9,000, has risen by nearly four times.* This is a painful bill for all but the very richest. For the average American household that doesn’t receive a lot of financial aid, higher education is simply out of reach.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/is-college-tuition-too-high.html?_r=0


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> To understand the feeling of crisis that many see in higher education right now, it’s useful to start with some figures from 40 years ago. In 1974, the median American family earned just under $13,000 a year. A new home could be had for $36,000, an average new car for $4,400. Attending a four-year private college cost around $2,000 a year: affordable, with some scrimping, to even median earners. As for public university, it was a bargain at $510 a year. To put these figures in current dollars, we’re talking about median family income of $62,000, a house for $174,000 and a sticker price of $21,300 for the car, $10,300 for the private university and $2,500 for the public one.
> 
> A lot has changed since then. Median family income has risen slightly, to about $64,000, while median home prices have increased by about two-thirds. (Car prices have remained steady.) But the real outlier is higher education.* Tuition at a private university is now roughly three times as expensive as it was in 1974, costing an average of $31,000 a year; public tuition, at $9,000, has risen by nearly four times.* This is a painful bill for all but the very richest. For the average American household that doesn’t receive a lot of financial aid, higher education is simply out of reach.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/is-college-tuition-too-high.html?_r=0









No, it is not.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Yay the US taxpayers get to fund degrees in high demand areas like 17th Century Kabuki theater.


----------



## rightwinger

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Yay the US taxpayers get to fund degrees in high demand areas like 17th Century Kabuki theater.


And engineers, scientists, accountants, doctors, lawyers


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yay the US taxpayers get to fund degrees in high demand areas like 17th Century Kabuki theater.
> 
> 
> 
> And engineers, scientists, accountants, doctors, lawyers
Click to expand...


Let those wanting to be engineers, etc. fund their own degrees if it's such a good investment.  What's the problem with the one directly benefitting from receiving such a degree investing in their own education?  It's easy.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just another way for people like you to support giving someone something so they'll vote for your candidate.  It's pandering.  The problem is those who pander don't get the bill.  

If you or anyone you know can't afford to send their kids to college, tough shit.  I don't owe it to them.  No one does.


----------



## Arianrhod

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Yay the US taxpayers get to fund degrees in high demand areas like 17th Century Kabuki theater.



No.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> America's public schools are 'free,' and guaranteed to all youngsters up to a certain age. America's public schools are frequently compared unfavorably with those in other countries.
> 
> America's universities are not 'free' and guaranteed to all, and they are BY FAR the very BEST in the world.
> 
> How hard is this to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> What does their funding have to do with it?
> 
> Our universities are becoming out of reach for many working Americans. Society benefits from an educated workforce
Click to expand...


*Our universities are becoming out of reach for many working Americans.*

How can this be? The government is spending more money every year to make college affordable.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How can this be? The government is spending more money every year to make college affordable.



And the usual RW response to this is to moan about how those costs are passed along to the taxpayer, and what we really need is smaller government.

But offer free tuition at state universities by imposing a small fee on hedge-fund managers and venture capitalists?  No, no, no, no, RWs can't wrap their little minds around how that might work...


----------



## dblack

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan would provide free online college courses to anyone who wants to take them. All accredited universities would be required to accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another Liberal thinking someone is owed something they don't deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We decided people deserve an education over a hundred years ago
> 
> Used to be eighth grade
> Then it became High School
> Now it needs to be college
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We?  You mean you bleeding hearts who thing someone else should foot the bill for it.  You don't count for shit in a ******'s back yard. You have less value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...that is what is known as ..We the People
> A free public school education is something we have cherished for over a century
Click to expand...


Actually, that's a gross misapprehension of "We the People". The phrase doesn't refer to government at all, but to society _independent_ of government. Unlike modern statists, the founders used it to emphasize that the people stood above government, and not the other way around.


----------



## dblack

Two Thumbs said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> just another $47 Billion in debt
> 
> this year
> 
> once colleges get that "free money", tuition will once again sky rocket so it will cost, us, $60-70 billion next year.
> 
> free college but you can't afford to eat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Food is next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then water
> then housing
Click to expand...


There seems to be nothing, in principle, preventing those initiatives. From what I'm hearing, if a given program can be shown to serve society's interests (as defined by government, of course) all bets are off.


----------



## rightwinger

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yay the US taxpayers get to fund degrees in high demand areas like 17th Century Kabuki theater.
> 
> 
> 
> And engineers, scientists, accountants, doctors, lawyers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let those wanting to be engineers, etc. fund their own degrees if it's such a good investment.  What's the problem with the one directly benefitting from receiving such a degree investing in their own education?  It's easy.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just another way for people like you to support giving someone something so they'll vote for your candidate.  It's pandering.  The problem is those who pander don't get the bill.
> 
> If you or anyone you know can't afford to send their kids to college, tough shit.  I don't owe it to them.  No one does.
Click to expand...

So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...

What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?


----------



## rightwinger

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan would provide free online college courses to anyone who wants to take them. All accredited universities would be required to accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another Liberal thinking someone is owed something they don't deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We decided people deserve an education over a hundred years ago
> 
> Used to be eighth grade
> Then it became High School
> Now it needs to be college
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We?  You mean you bleeding hearts who thing someone else should foot the bill for it.  You don't count for shit in a ******'s back yard. You have less value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...that is what is known as ..We the People
> A free public school education is something we have cherished for over a century
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that's a gross misapprehension of "We the People". The phrase doesn't refer to government at all, but to society _independent_ of government. Unlike modern statists, the founders used it to emphasize the that the people stood above government, and not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Absolutely...I think you are starting to get it

In the Constitution, We the People established a government to represent us and do what is in the best interests of the people. If government fails to do that...we the people vote someone new in


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can this be? The government is spending more money every year to make college affordable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the usual RW response to this is to moan about how those costs are passed along to the taxpayer, and what we really need is smaller government.
> 
> But offer free tuition at state universities by imposing a small fee on hedge-fund managers and venture capitalists?  No, no, no, no, RWs can't wrap their little minds around how that might work...
Click to expand...


*And the usual RW response to this is to moan about how those costs are passed along to the taxpayer
*
Costs are passed along. And prices rise at multiples of prices in general.
The government wants to make it more affordable, spends tens of billions, it becomes less affordable.
*
But offer free tuition at state universities by imposing a small fee on hedge-fund managers and venture capitalists?
*
Is it a small fee, or is it hundreds of billions a year? Because your post said hundreds of billions.
And your source did not limit the tax to hedge funds and venture capitalists.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can this be? The government is spending more money every year to make college affordable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the usual RW response to this is to moan about how those costs are passed along to the taxpayer, and what we really need is smaller government.
> 
> But offer free tuition at state universities by imposing a small fee on hedge-fund managers and venture capitalists?  No, no, no, no, RWs can't wrap their little minds around how that might work...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And the usual RW response to this is to moan about how those costs are passed along to the taxpayer
> *
> Costs are passed along. And prices rise at multiples of prices in general.
> The government wants to make it more affordable, spends tens of billions, it becomes less affordable.
> *
> But offer free tuition at state universities by imposing a small fee on hedge-fund managers and venture capitalists?
> *
> Is it a small fee, or is it hundreds of billions a year? Because your post said hundreds of billions.
> And your source did not limit the tax to hedge funds and venture capitalists.
Click to expand...


You're the one who keeps tossing that "hundreds of billions" around, not me.  I'm just quoting it back to you.


----------



## dblack

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another Liberal thinking someone is owed something they don't deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We decided people deserve an education over a hundred years ago
> 
> Used to be eighth grade
> Then it became High School
> Now it needs to be college
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We?  You mean you bleeding hearts who thing someone else should foot the bill for it.  You don't count for shit in a ******'s back yard. You have less value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...that is what is known as ..We the People
> A free public school education is something we have cherished for over a century
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that's a gross misapprehension of "We the People". The phrase doesn't refer to government at all, but to society _independent_ of government. Unlike modern statists, the founders used it to emphasize the that the people stood above government, and not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely...I think you are starting to get it.
Click to expand...

Feel free to join me. But you're not quite there yet.


> In the Constitution, We the People established a government to represent us and do what is in the best interests of the people. If government fails to do that...we the people vote someone new in


The point you're not getting is that "We the People" stipulated a government that would be limited to protecting our rights, and not be granted the power to violate them in the name of majority rule.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yay the US taxpayers get to fund degrees in high demand areas like 17th Century Kabuki theater.
> 
> 
> 
> And engineers, scientists, accountants, doctors, lawyers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let those wanting to be engineers, etc. fund their own degrees if it's such a good investment.  What's the problem with the one directly benefitting from receiving such a degree investing in their own education?  It's easy.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just another way for people like you to support giving someone something so they'll vote for your candidate.  It's pandering.  The problem is those who pander don't get the bill.
> 
> If you or anyone you know can't afford to send their kids to college, tough shit.  I don't owe it to them.  No one does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
Click to expand...


*What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
*
Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?


----------



## rightwinger

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We decided people deserve an education over a hundred years ago
> 
> Used to be eighth grade
> Then it became High School
> Now it needs to be college
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We?  You mean you bleeding hearts who thing someone else should foot the bill for it.  You don't count for shit in a ******'s back yard. You have less value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...that is what is known as ..We the People
> A free public school education is something we have cherished for over a century
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that's a gross misapprehension of "We the People". The phrase doesn't refer to government at all, but to society _independent_ of government. Unlike modern statists, the founders used it to emphasize the that the people stood above government, and not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely...I think you are starting to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to join me. But you're not quite there yet.
> 
> 
> 
> In the Constitution, We the People established a government to represent us and do what is in the best interests of the people. If government fails to do that...we the people vote someone new in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point you're not getting is that "We the People" stipulated a government that would be limited to protecting our rights, and not be granted the power to violate them in the name of majority rule.
Click to expand...

We have not done that for 200 years

A government that does not address the problems and issues of We the People gets voted out and replaced with someone who does


----------



## rightwinger

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yay the US taxpayers get to fund degrees in high demand areas like 17th Century Kabuki theater.
> 
> 
> 
> And engineers, scientists, accountants, doctors, lawyers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let those wanting to be engineers, etc. fund their own degrees if it's such a good investment.  What's the problem with the one directly benefitting from receiving such a degree investing in their own education?  It's easy.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just another way for people like you to support giving someone something so they'll vote for your candidate.  It's pandering.  The problem is those who pander don't get the bill.
> 
> If you or anyone you know can't afford to send their kids to college, tough shit.  I don't owe it to them.  No one does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
Click to expand...

Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone


----------



## dblack

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We?  You mean you bleeding hearts who thing someone else should foot the bill for it.  You don't count for shit in a ******'s back yard. You have less value.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...that is what is known as ..We the People
> A free public school education is something we have cherished for over a century
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that's a gross misapprehension of "We the People". The phrase doesn't refer to government at all, but to society _independent_ of government. Unlike modern statists, the founders used it to emphasize the that the people stood above government, and not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely...I think you are starting to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to join me. But you're not quite there yet.
> 
> 
> 
> In the Constitution, We the People established a government to represent us and do what is in the best interests of the people. If government fails to do that...we the people vote someone new in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point you're not getting is that "We the People" stipulated a government that would be limited to protecting our rights, and not be granted the power to violate them in the name of majority rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have not done that for 200 years
Click to expand...


It's never too late to get it right.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can this be? The government is spending more money every year to make college affordable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the usual RW response to this is to moan about how those costs are passed along to the taxpayer, and what we really need is smaller government.
> 
> But offer free tuition at state universities by imposing a small fee on hedge-fund managers and venture capitalists?  No, no, no, no, RWs can't wrap their little minds around how that might work...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And the usual RW response to this is to moan about how those costs are passed along to the taxpayer
> *
> Costs are passed along. And prices rise at multiples of prices in general.
> The government wants to make it more affordable, spends tens of billions, it becomes less affordable.
> *
> But offer free tuition at state universities by imposing a small fee on hedge-fund managers and venture capitalists?
> *
> Is it a small fee, or is it hundreds of billions a year? Because your post said hundreds of billions.
> And your source did not limit the tax to hedge funds and venture capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who keeps tossing that "hundreds of billions" around, not me.  I'm just quoting it back to you.
Click to expand...


I know you're a liberal, and therefore dim, but I'm just quoting from your post #3 in this thread.

*Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.*
This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge fund
s, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee 
on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. *It has been estimated that this provision could 
raise hundreds of billions a year *which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges
and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the 
middle class of this country.

I'll be happy to break it down further if anyone's interested but, bottom line, unless you're a hedge fund manager (and a bad one), you've got nothing to worry about.

Sanders just submitted college for all bill. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

^
Click on the above link and you can see your post.
So what is it? A small fee or hundreds of billions a year?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yay the US taxpayers get to fund degrees in high demand areas like 17th Century Kabuki theater.
> 
> 
> 
> And engineers, scientists, accountants, doctors, lawyers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let those wanting to be engineers, etc. fund their own degrees if it's such a good investment.  What's the problem with the one directly benefitting from receiving such a degree investing in their own education?  It's easy.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just another way for people like you to support giving someone something so they'll vote for your candidate.  It's pandering.  The problem is those who pander don't get the bill.
> 
> If you or anyone you know can't afford to send their kids to college, tough shit.  I don't owe it to them.  No one does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
Click to expand...


Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?


----------



## rightwinger

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And engineers, scientists, accountants, doctors, lawyers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let those wanting to be engineers, etc. fund their own degrees if it's such a good investment.  What's the problem with the one directly benefitting from receiving such a degree investing in their own education?  It's easy.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just another way for people like you to support giving someone something so they'll vote for your candidate.  It's pandering.  The problem is those who pander don't get the bill.
> 
> If you or anyone you know can't afford to send their kids to college, tough shit.  I don't owe it to them.  No one does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
Click to expand...

They can do that now


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let those wanting to be engineers, etc. fund their own degrees if it's such a good investment.  What's the problem with the one directly benefitting from receiving such a degree investing in their own education?  It's easy.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just another way for people like you to support giving someone something so they'll vote for your candidate.  It's pandering.  The problem is those who pander don't get the bill.
> 
> If you or anyone you know can't afford to send their kids to college, tough shit.  I don't owe it to them.  No one does.
> 
> 
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can do that now
Click to expand...


Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.


----------



## rightwinger

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can do that now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
Click to expand...

Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> 
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can do that now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
Click to expand...


When daddy sees you're getting Cs, he's more likely to cut you off.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> 
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can do that now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
Click to expand...

Daddies pockets don't pull money out of thin air.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And engineers, scientists, accountants, doctors, lawyers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let those wanting to be engineers, etc. fund their own degrees if it's such a good investment.  What's the problem with the one directly benefitting from receiving such a degree investing in their own education?  It's easy.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just another way for people like you to support giving someone something so they'll vote for your candidate.  It's pandering.  The problem is those who pander don't get the bill.
> 
> If you or anyone you know can't afford to send their kids to college, tough shit.  I don't owe it to them.  No one does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
Click to expand...


Is there any evidence that state universities do that more than private universities?


----------



## rightwinger

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can do that now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When daddy sees you're getting Cs, he's more likely to cut you off.
Click to expand...

Like anything else...the government would maintain standards for staying in school. You flunk out ...you are gone
C is still passing


----------



## rightwinger

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can do that now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Daddies pockets don't pull money out of thin air.
Click to expand...

Sometimes....Daddy's pockets are bottomless


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> 
> 
> They can do that now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When daddy sees you're getting Cs, he's more likely to cut you off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like anything else...the government would maintain standards for staying in school. You flunk out ...you are gone
> C is still passing
Click to expand...


*the government would maintain standards for staying in school.
*
Thanks for the laugh.

*You flunk out ...you are gone C is still passing
*
Those high paying degrees don't work very well with a C average.
Great investment of our tax dollars you're pushing for.


----------



## rightwinger

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can do that now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When daddy sees you're getting Cs, he's more likely to cut you off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like anything else...the government would maintain standards for staying in school. You flunk out ...you are gone
> C is still passing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *the government would maintain standards for staying in school.
> *
> Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> *You flunk out ...you are gone C is still passing
> *
> Those high paying degrees don't work very well with a C average.
> Great investment of our tax dollars you're pushing for.
Click to expand...


What do you call the person who finished last in his Medical School graduating class?
Doctor


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When daddy sees you're getting Cs, he's more likely to cut you off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like anything else...the government would maintain standards for staying in school. You flunk out ...you are gone
> C is still passing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *the government would maintain standards for staying in school.
> *
> Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> *You flunk out ...you are gone C is still passing
> *
> Those high paying degrees don't work very well with a C average.
> Great investment of our tax dollars you're pushing for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call the person who finished last in his Medical School graduating class?
> Doctor
Click to expand...


You want the government to pay for medical school for rich doctors?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let those wanting to be engineers, etc. fund their own degrees if it's such a good investment.  What's the problem with the one directly benefitting from receiving such a degree investing in their own education?  It's easy.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just another way for people like you to support giving someone something so they'll vote for your candidate.  It's pandering.  The problem is those who pander don't get the bill.
> 
> If you or anyone you know can't afford to send their kids to college, tough shit.  I don't owe it to them.  No one does.
> 
> 
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that state universities do that more than private universities?
Click to expand...


So what is it? A small fee or hundreds of billions a year?


----------



## rightwinger

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When daddy sees you're getting Cs, he's more likely to cut you off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like anything else...the government would maintain standards for staying in school. You flunk out ...you are gone
> C is still passing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *the government would maintain standards for staying in school.
> *
> Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> *You flunk out ...you are gone C is still passing
> *
> Those high paying degrees don't work very well with a C average.
> Great investment of our tax dollars you're pushing for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call the person who finished last in his Medical School graduating class?
> Doctor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the government to pay for medical school for rich doctors?
Click to expand...


Why not?
We pay for High School for kids from rich families


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

rightwinger said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> 
> 
> They can do that now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Daddies pockets don't pull money out of thin air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes....Daddy's pockets are bottomless
Click to expand...

Not Federal government bottomless. If the Department of Educations yearly budget was considered GDP it would rank 66th in the world.


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that state universities do that more than private universities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is it? A small fee or hundreds of billions a year?
Click to expand...


What's that got to do with your claim that state universities "pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> When daddy sees you're getting Cs, he's more likely to cut you off.
> 
> 
> 
> Like anything else...the government would maintain standards for staying in school. You flunk out ...you are gone
> C is still passing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *the government would maintain standards for staying in school.
> *
> Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> *You flunk out ...you are gone C is still passing
> *
> Those high paying degrees don't work very well with a C average.
> Great investment of our tax dollars you're pushing for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call the person who finished last in his Medical School graduating class?
> Doctor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the government to pay for medical school for rich doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> We pay for High School for kids from rich families
Click to expand...


Rich families usually pay more property taxes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> 
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that state universities do that more than private universities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is it? A small fee or hundreds of billions a year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that got to do with your claim that state universities "pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going"?
Click to expand...


You're the one who wants to "make it free".
So which is it?


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that state universities do that more than private universities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is it? A small fee or hundreds of billions a year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that got to do with your claim that state universities "pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who wants to "make it free".
> So which is it?
Click to expand...


You made the claim about grading.  I'm waiting for you to back it up.  Instead you're back to tossing out that "billions of dollars" figure that you were unable or unwilling to support.

Care to go for a third unsupported statement?  How many more you got?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that state universities do that more than private universities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is it? A small fee or hundreds of billions a year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that got to do with your claim that state universities "pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who wants to "make it free".
> So which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made the claim about grading.  I'm waiting for you to back it up.  Instead you're back to tossing out that "billions of dollars" figure that you were unable or unwilling to support.
> 
> Care to go for a third unsupported statement?  How many more you got?
Click to expand...


You haven't heard of grade inflation?

Back to your post #3.
Is it a small fee, or hundreds of billions a year?


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You haven't heard of grade inflation?



I've heard of it.  I'm waiting for you to prove it happens more in state universities than in private ones.


----------



## rightwinger

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can do that now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Daddies pockets don't pull money out of thin air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes....Daddy's pockets are bottomless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Federal government bottomless. If the Department of Educations yearly budget was considered GDP it would rank 66th in the world.
Click to expand...


I guess it all comes down to priorities..

As a nation, we can afford to imprison more people than any other country on the planet
We can afford a military that is larger than the next twelve countries 

Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education


----------



## rightwinger

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like anything else...the government would maintain standards for staying in school. You flunk out ...you are gone
> C is still passing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *the government would maintain standards for staying in school.
> *
> Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> *You flunk out ...you are gone C is still passing
> *
> Those high paying degrees don't work very well with a C average.
> Great investment of our tax dollars you're pushing for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call the person who finished last in his Medical School graduating class?
> Doctor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the government to pay for medical school for rich doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> We pay for High School for kids from rich families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich families usually pay more property taxes.
Click to expand...


So?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't heard of grade inflation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard of it.  I'm waiting for you to prove it happens more in state universities than in private ones.
Click to expand...


I don't care if it happens more.
It's just another issue that could get worse with hundreds of billions of extra government dollars thrown at education.

Are you going to keep running away from post #3?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *the government would maintain standards for staying in school.
> *
> Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> *You flunk out ...you are gone C is still passing
> *
> Those high paying degrees don't work very well with a C average.
> Great investment of our tax dollars you're pushing for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the person who finished last in his Medical School graduating class?
> Doctor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the government to pay for medical school for rich doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> We pay for High School for kids from rich families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich families usually pay more property taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
Click to expand...


So we've gone from making education available to those who can't afford it to paying for rich families too?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Daddies pockets don't pull money out of thin air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes....Daddy's pockets are bottomless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Federal government bottomless. If the Department of Educations yearly budget was considered GDP it would rank 66th in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it all comes down to priorities..
> 
> As a nation, we can afford to imprison more people than any other country on the planet
> We can afford a military that is larger than the next twelve countries
> 
> Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
Click to expand...


*Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
*
We don't invest in higher education?


----------



## Arianrhod

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the person who finished last in his Medical School graduating class?
> Doctor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want the government to pay for medical school for rich doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> We pay for High School for kids from rich families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich families usually pay more property taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we've gone from making education available to those who can't afford it to paying for rich families too?
Click to expand...


Do you have any actual data on how many wealthy families send their kids to state universities?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want the government to pay for medical school for rich doctors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> We pay for High School for kids from rich families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich families usually pay more property taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we've gone from making education available to those who can't afford it to paying for rich families too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any actual data on how many wealthy families send their kids to state universities?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## rightwinger

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
> 
> 
> 
> Daddies pockets don't pull money out of thin air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes....Daddy's pockets are bottomless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Federal government bottomless. If the Department of Educations yearly budget was considered GDP it would rank 66th in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it all comes down to priorities..
> 
> As a nation, we can afford to imprison more people than any other country on the planet
> We can afford a military that is larger than the next twelve countries
> 
> Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> *
> We don't invest in higher education?
Click to expand...


Not as much as other industrialized nations. Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate 

All part of the GOP plan to make higher education a vestige of the rich only


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let those wanting to be engineers, etc. fund their own degrees if it's such a good investment.  What's the problem with the one directly benefitting from receiving such a degree investing in their own education?  It's easy.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just another way for people like you to support giving someone something so they'll vote for your candidate.  It's pandering.  The problem is those who pander don't get the bill.
> 
> If you or anyone you know can't afford to send their kids to college, tough shit.  I don't owe it to them.  No one does.
> 
> 
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that state universities do that more than private universities?
Click to expand...


I really wish that, just once, when the point of a post utterly flies over your pointy little head, it would kick you on the way past.  Just once.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daddies pockets don't pull money out of thin air.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes....Daddy's pockets are bottomless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Federal government bottomless. If the Department of Educations yearly budget was considered GDP it would rank 66th in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it all comes down to priorities..
> 
> As a nation, we can afford to imprison more people than any other country on the planet
> We can afford a military that is larger than the next twelve countries
> 
> Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> *
> We don't invest in higher education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as much as other industrialized nations. Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate
> 
> All part of the GOP plan to make higher education a vestige of the rich only
Click to expand...


*Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate*

Tuition was dropping before this "Republican austerity"?
Link?


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that state universities do that more than private universities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really wish that, just once, when the point of a post utterly flies over your pointy little head, it would kick you on the way past.  Just once.
Click to expand...


In that eventuality, should I rely on your vast experience of the phenomenon?


----------



## rightwinger

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes....Daddy's pockets are bottomless
> 
> 
> 
> Not Federal government bottomless. If the Department of Educations yearly budget was considered GDP it would rank 66th in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it all comes down to priorities..
> 
> As a nation, we can afford to imprison more people than any other country on the planet
> We can afford a military that is larger than the next twelve countries
> 
> Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> *
> We don't invest in higher education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as much as other industrialized nations. Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate
> 
> All part of the GOP plan to make higher education a vestige of the rich only
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate*
> 
> Tuition was dropping before this "Republican austerity"?
> Link?
Click to expand...

25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not Federal government bottomless. If the Department of Educations yearly budget was considered GDP it would rank 66th in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it all comes down to priorities..
> 
> As a nation, we can afford to imprison more people than any other country on the planet
> We can afford a military that is larger than the next twelve countries
> 
> Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> *
> We don't invest in higher education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as much as other industrialized nations. Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate
> 
> All part of the GOP plan to make higher education a vestige of the rich only
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate*
> 
> Tuition was dropping before this "Republican austerity"?
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges
Click to expand...


Tuition was dropping before this "Republican austerity"?


----------



## Two Thumbs

dblack said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> just another $47 Billion in debt
> 
> this year
> 
> once colleges get that "free money", tuition will once again sky rocket so it will cost, us, $60-70 billion next year.
> 
> free college but you can't afford to eat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Food is next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then water
> then housing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There seems to be nothing, in principle, preventing those initiatives. From what I'm hearing, if a given program can be shown to serve society's interests (as defined by government, of course) all bets are off.
Click to expand...

dems support full government control of our lives so everything will be fair.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> just another $47 Billion in debt
> 
> this year
> 
> once colleges get that "free money", tuition will once again sky rocket so it will cost, us, $60-70 billion next year.
> 
> free college but you can't afford to eat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Food is next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then water
> then housing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There seems to be nothing, in principle, preventing those initiatives. From what I'm hearing, if a given program can be shown to serve society's interests (as defined by government, of course) all bets are off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dems support full government control of our lives so everything will be fair.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see a link on that one


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> just another $47 Billion in debt
> 
> this year
> 
> once colleges get that "free money", tuition will once again sky rocket so it will cost, us, $60-70 billion next year.
> 
> free college but you can't afford to eat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Food is next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then water
> then housing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There seems to be nothing, in principle, preventing those initiatives. From what I'm hearing, if a given program can be shown to serve society's interests (as defined by government, of course) all bets are off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dems support full government control of our lives so everything will be fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd love to see a link on that one
Click to expand...

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.

anything


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Food is next.
> 
> 
> 
> Then water
> then housing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There seems to be nothing, in principle, preventing those initiatives. From what I'm hearing, if a given program can be shown to serve society's interests (as defined by government, of course) all bets are off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dems support full government control of our lives so everything will be fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd love to see a link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
Click to expand...

Fail on your part

Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?


----------



## dblack

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then water
> then housing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be nothing, in principle, preventing those initiatives. From what I'm hearing, if a given program can be shown to serve society's interests (as defined by government, of course) all bets are off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dems support full government control of our lives so everything will be fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd love to see a link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean much, because as long as any shred of freedom exists, you'd claim there isn't full control. What most Democrats, and frankly most Republicans, _don't_ support is clear limits in government power.


----------



## Luddly Neddite




----------



## rightwinger

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be nothing, in principle, preventing those initiatives. From what I'm hearing, if a given program can be shown to serve society's interests (as defined by government, of course) all bets are off.
> 
> 
> 
> dems support full government control of our lives so everything will be fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd love to see a link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't mean much, because as long as any shred of freedom exists, you'd claim there isn't full control. What most Democrats, and frankly most Republicans, _don't_ support is clear limits in government power.
Click to expand...

OK...what do you call full control of our lives?
Deciding where you live, who you marry, where you work, how many kids you can have?

What do you call full control?


----------



## Luddly Neddite




----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Luddly Neddite said:


>



I wonder if Finland is demographically different than the US? LOL!

All Iceland did was screw their foreign depositors.


----------



## rdean

Penelope said:


> *Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act*
> 
> 
> *Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. *This legislation
> 
> would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public
> 
> colleges and universities.
> 
> Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under
> 
> *the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
> 
> be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost) *
> 
> To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect
> 
> students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their
> 
> higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,
> 
> colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
> 
> *States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,
> 
> and provide professional development opportunities for professors.*
> 
> No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina
> 
> 4
> 
> http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,
> 
> For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs,  so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.
> 
> also anything free, is well taken for granted.
> 
> also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.
> 
> Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax  hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?
> 
> When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.
> 
> I'm not understanding this I guess.


Big mistake.  in my opinion, use the money for Jr. College, technical and trade schools.  Make the credits transferable.  Then college after that, should cost.  Then people who decide not to continue have a trade to fall back on or have enough education to get a quality job.  The money that goes to college after that pays for the needed higher education.  But if your family are already millionaires and you are a dependent, then you should pay the full cost of your education. 

Rich people that get free stuff from the government reminds of Republicans in the house who pass a bill giving GOP farm owners in the House millions in subsidies while cutting food stamps and benefits for veterans and poor people.  Republicans in the house who get farm money insist it's OK because they are producers.


----------



## dblack

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> dems support full government control of our lives so everything will be fair.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see a link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't mean much, because as long as any shred of freedom exists, you'd claim there isn't full control. What most Democrats, and frankly most Republicans, _don't_ support is clear limits in government power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK...what do you call full control of our lives?
> Deciding where you live, who you marry, where you work, how many kids you can have?
> 
> What do you call full control?
Click to expand...

Right on  cue.


----------



## Arianrhod

dblack said:


> Right on  cue.



Looks as if no one wants to ride that slippery slope with you.


----------



## rightwinger

Luddly Neddite said:


>


Other industrialized countries pay for full college tuition

They do not have militaries larger than the next twelve countries combined. They have not taken the mission to defend the world...only to educate their people


----------



## rightwinger

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see a link on that one
> 
> 
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't mean much, because as long as any shred of freedom exists, you'd claim there isn't full control. What most Democrats, and frankly most Republicans, _don't_ support is clear limits in government power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK...what do you call full control of our lives?
> Deciding where you live, who you marry, where you work, how many kids you can have?
> 
> What do you call full control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right on  cue.
Click to expand...

I asked you what I thought would be a simple question

You claim Dems want government to have complete control of our lives. I defined what I think is complete control......why can't you do the same?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Luddly Neddite said:


>


You just proved a point about how anything the Government touches turns out to be an expensive mess.


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then water
> then housing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be nothing, in principle, preventing those initiatives. From what I'm hearing, if a given program can be shown to serve society's interests (as defined by government, of course) all bets are off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dems support full government control of our lives so everything will be fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd love to see a link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
Click to expand...

so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Luddly Neddite said:


>


$148 million actually

that's still a lot, but not as much as your moronic lie


----------



## dblack

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> 
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't mean much, because as long as any shred of freedom exists, you'd claim there isn't full control. What most Democrats, and frankly most Republicans, _don't_ support is clear limits in government power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK...what do you call full control of our lives?
> Deciding where you live, who you marry, where you work, how many kids you can have?
> 
> What do you call full control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right on  cue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you what I thought would be a simple question
> 
> You claim Dems want government to have complete control of our lives. I defined what I think is complete control......why can't you do the same?
Click to expand...


I didn't claim that, actually. I just predicted your response. Which was... predictable.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be nothing, in principle, preventing those initiatives. From what I'm hearing, if a given program can be shown to serve society's interests (as defined by government, of course) all bets are off.
> 
> 
> 
> dems support full government control of our lives so everything will be fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd love to see a link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
Click to expand...

Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"

You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it

OK...now it's your turn
Ready to give me an example of full government control?


----------



## dblack

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> dems support full government control of our lives so everything will be fair.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see a link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
Click to expand...


Yep. Black and white statements like "full control" are always technically incorrect. Congrats.

But you continue to ignore the concern that prompts such claims. You seem utterly unwilling recognize constitutional limits on government power. That's why you get accused of wanting "full control".


----------



## rightwinger

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see a link on that one
> 
> 
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Black and white statements like "full control" are always technically incorrect. Congrats.
> 
> But you continue to ignore the concern that prompts such claims. You seem utterly unwilling recognize constitutional limits on government power. That's why you get accused of wanting "full control".
Click to expand...


What is our government doing now that is unconstitutional?


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not Federal government bottomless. If the Department of Educations yearly budget was considered GDP it would rank 66th in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it all comes down to priorities..
> 
> As a nation, we can afford to imprison more people than any other country on the planet
> We can afford a military that is larger than the next twelve countries
> 
> Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> *
> We don't invest in higher education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as much as other industrialized nations. Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate
> 
> All part of the GOP plan to make higher education a vestige of the rich only
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate*
> 
> Tuition was dropping before this "Republican austerity"?
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges
Click to expand...


There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to fund college for someone else's kid.  Let that kids parents do it.


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> 
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Black and white statements like "full control" are always technically incorrect. Congrats.
> 
> But you continue to ignore the concern that prompts such claims. You seem utterly unwilling recognize constitutional limits on government power. That's why you get accused of wanting "full control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is our government doing now that is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> When daddy sees you're getting Cs, he's more likely to cut you off.
> 
> 
> 
> Like anything else...the government would maintain standards for staying in school. You flunk out ...you are gone
> C is still passing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *the government would maintain standards for staying in school.
> *
> Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> *You flunk out ...you are gone C is still passing
> *
> Those high paying degrees don't work very well with a C average.
> Great investment of our tax dollars you're pushing for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call the person who finished last in his Medical School graduating class?
> Doctor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the government to pay for medical school for rich doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> We pay for High School for kids from rich families
Click to expand...


I thought all those rich kids went to private schools.  Since when are you paying for that?  You also seem to forget that those rich families still pay the taxes that fund public schools for the poor *******, spics, white trash, and your kids.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let those wanting to be engineers, etc. fund their own degrees if it's such a good investment.  What's the problem with the one directly benefitting from receiving such a degree investing in their own education?  It's easy.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just another way for people like you to support giving someone something so they'll vote for your candidate.  It's pandering.  The problem is those who pander don't get the bill.
> 
> If you or anyone you know can't afford to send their kids to college, tough shit.  I don't owe it to them.  No one does.
> 
> 
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that state universities do that more than private universities?
Click to expand...


Private universities laugh at the applications of some of those state schools will allow in.  I know the private university where I attended would laugh at your state school diploma.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> 
> 
> They can do that now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When daddy sees you're getting Cs, he's more likely to cut you off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like anything else...the government would maintain standards ......
Click to expand...


Wow. Did you really think before posting that?


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yay the US taxpayers get to fund degrees in high demand areas like 17th Century Kabuki theater.
> 
> 
> 
> And engineers, scientists, accountants, doctors, lawyers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let those wanting to be engineers, etc. fund their own degrees if it's such a good investment.  What's the problem with the one directly benefitting from receiving such a degree investing in their own education?  It's easy.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just another way for people like you to support giving someone something so they'll vote for your candidate.  It's pandering.  The problem is those who pander don't get the bill.
> 
> If you or anyone you know can't afford to send their kids to college, tough shit.  I don't owe it to them.  No one does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
Click to expand...


If those state schools know the money is coming, they'll do whatever to keep less than qualified students in.  The thing is they won't flunk out.  People like you will see to it that no flunking grade can be given.


----------



## dblack

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> 
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Black and white statements like "full control" are always technically incorrect. Congrats.
> 
> But you continue to ignore the concern that prompts such claims. You seem utterly unwilling recognize constitutional limits on government power. That's why you get accused of wanting "full control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is our government doing now that is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

That's begging the question. My own view is that anything not covered by the enumerated powers is unconstitutional. And that the prevailing interpretation of the "general welfare" clause is wrong. From that perspective many off the things our federal government is currently doing are unconstitutional.

What about you? Do you think Congress should be allowed to pass any laws they want, as long as they steer clear of the beleaguered Bill of Rights?


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> 
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can do that now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigger incentive when Uncle Sam foots the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why a bigger incentive than when daddy foots the bill?
Click to expand...


Because dads like me that actually foot the bill for their kids don't accept average.  People like you that only care about pandering to kids whose sorry parents don't care about them aren't concerned about results.


----------



## rightwinger

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it all comes down to priorities..
> 
> As a nation, we can afford to imprison more people than any other country on the planet
> We can afford a military that is larger than the next twelve countries
> 
> Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> *
> We don't invest in higher education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as much as other industrialized nations. Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate
> 
> All part of the GOP plan to make higher education a vestige of the rich only
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate*
> 
> Tuition was dropping before this "Republican austerity"?
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to fund college for someone else's kid.  Let that kids parents do it.
Click to expand...

Same logic applies to second grade


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So only those who can afford it get to be engineers, scientists, accountants...
> 
> What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that state universities do that more than private universities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Private universities laugh at the applications of some of those state schools will allow in.  I know the private university where I attended would laugh at your state school diploma.
Click to expand...







Many state universities are quite excellent. They too operate on a competitive basis.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> *
> We don't invest in higher education?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as much as other industrialized nations. Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate
> 
> All part of the GOP plan to make higher education a vestige of the rich only
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate*
> 
> Tuition was dropping before this "Republican austerity"?
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to fund college for someone else's kid.  Let that kids parents do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same logic applies to second grade
Click to expand...


Now think about that for a second.


....


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet, we are outraged at the idea of investing in higher education
> *
> We don't invest in higher education?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as much as other industrialized nations. Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate
> 
> All part of the GOP plan to make higher education a vestige of the rich only
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate*
> 
> Tuition was dropping before this "Republican austerity"?
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to fund college for someone else's kid.  Let that kids parents do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same logic applies to second grade
Click to expand...


Not when the purpose of the second grade is to teach social skills and basic fundamentals.  That's not the purpose of college.  If a kid's  parents can't pay for college, they don't go.  I pay for what merit based academic scholarships didn't provide mine.  It's not my responsibility to do that for some worthless POS that won't do it for his own kids.  You're welcome to do it on that sorry parents behalf but it's not my place to do so.  If you care about that parent's kids, prove it by paying yourself with YOUR money.  MY money is MINE boy.


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What is wrong with a society putting out the best qualified workforce in the world?
> *
> Is the government going to pay for the best qualified, or are they going to pay for everybody?
> 
> 
> 
> Only those who are qualified will earn a degree
> Like anything else...you flunk out, you are gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any incentive for colleges to pass the flunking students, to keep the gravy train going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that state universities do that more than private universities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Private universities laugh at the applications of some of those state schools will allow in.  I know the private university where I attended would laugh at your state school diploma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many state universities are quite excellent. They too operate on a competitive basis.
Click to expand...


Depends.


----------



## rightwinger

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> 
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Black and white statements like "full control" are always technically incorrect. Congrats.
> 
> But you continue to ignore the concern that prompts such claims. You seem utterly unwilling recognize constitutional limits on government power. That's why you get accused of wanting "full control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is our government doing now that is unconstitutional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's begging the question. My own view is that anything not covered by the enumerated powers is unconstitutional. And that the prevailing interpretation of the "general welfare" clause is wrong. From that perspective many off the things our federal government is currently doing are unconstitutional.
> 
> What about you? Do you think Congress should be allowed to pass any laws they want, as long as they steer clear of the beleaguered Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

I look at the Constitution as providing a kitchen not as a cookbook telling future generations what they may eat and what ingredients they are allowed

Congress does what needs to be done. If We the People are not happy, we vote them out


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as much as other industrialized nations. Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate
> 
> All part of the GOP plan to make higher education a vestige of the rich only
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate*
> 
> Tuition was dropping before this "Republican austerity"?
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to fund college for someone else's kid.  Let that kids parents do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same logic applies to second grade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
Click to expand...


Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.


----------



## Unkotare

Sadly so.


----------



## dblack

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Black and white statements like "full control" are always technically incorrect. Congrats.
> 
> But you continue to ignore the concern that prompts such claims. You seem utterly unwilling recognize constitutional limits on government power. That's why you get accused of wanting "full control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is our government doing now that is unconstitutional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's begging the question. My own view is that anything not covered by the enumerated powers is unconstitutional. And that the prevailing interpretation of the "general welfare" clause is wrong. From that perspective many off the things our federal government is currently doing are unconstitutional.
> 
> What about you? Do you think Congress should be allowed to pass any laws they want, as long as they steer clear of the beleaguered Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I look at the Constitution as providing a kitchen not as a cookbook telling future generations what they may eat and what ingredients they are allowed
> 
> Congress does what needs to be done. If We the People are not happy, we vote them out
Click to expand...


Exactly. And that's really weak. Essentially, you're saying government should have the power to control all aspects off our lives, and that our only recourse is an election process dominated by entrenched parties and corporate money.


----------



## rightwinger

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Republican austerity has been directed at our universities causing tuition to escalate*
> 
> Tuition was dropping before this "Republican austerity"?
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to fund college for someone else's kid.  Let that kids parents do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same logic applies to second grade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
Click to expand...

The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?


----------



## OldLady

I have another idea.  Rather than gradually make 4 years of college a requirement, re-engineer the twelve years we have already mandated our children attend.  Our standards have become way too low.  I'm not sure why.  I'm sure y'all will have fun pointing fingers.  But our high schools have become babysitters for the teenagers who aren't interested or equipped for college.  Start good vocational programs earlier.  Don't give a social pass to kids who can't accomplish the work.  Give them plenty of opportunties to catch up, but don't let them go forward just because they've gotten too big for the desk.  Keeping kids in academic pursuits until age 22 is just a way to avoid the inevitable--they're going to get to the job market eventually.  It doesn't teach half of them half as much as people seem to think.


----------



## rightwinger

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Black and white statements like "full control" are always technically incorrect. Congrats.
> 
> But you continue to ignore the concern that prompts such claims. You seem utterly unwilling recognize constitutional limits on government power. That's why you get accused of wanting "full control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is our government doing now that is unconstitutional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's begging the question. My own view is that anything not covered by the enumerated powers is unconstitutional. And that the prevailing interpretation of the "general welfare" clause is wrong. From that perspective many off the things our federal government is currently doing are unconstitutional.
> 
> What about you? Do you think Congress should be allowed to pass any laws they want, as long as they steer clear of the beleaguered Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I look at the Constitution as providing a kitchen not as a cookbook telling future generations what they may eat and what ingredients they are allowed
> 
> Congress does what needs to be done. If We the People are not happy, we vote them out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. And that's really weak. Essentially, you're saying government should have the power to control all aspects off our lives, and that our only recourse is an election process dominated by entrenched parties and corporate money.
Click to expand...


Hundreds of Congressmen and Senators get voted out every election. Shows the power of We the People


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to fund college for someone else's kid.  Let that kids parents do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same logic applies to second grade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
Click to expand...


Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.

I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.


----------



## rightwinger

OldLady said:


> I have another idea.  Rather than gradually make 4 years of college a requirement, re-engineer the twelve years we have already mandated our children attend.  Our standards have become way too low.  I'm not sure why.  I'm sure y'all will have fun pointing fingers.  But our high schools have become babysitters for the teenagers who aren't interested or equipped for college.  Start good vocational programs earlier.  Don't give a social pass to kids who can't accomplish the work.  Give them plenty of opportunties to catch up, but don't let them go forward just because they've gotten too big for the desk.  Keeping kids in academic pursuits until age 22 is just a way to avoid the inevitable--they're going to get to the job market eventually.  It doesn't teach half of them half as much as people seem to think.



I think we should let the job market decide how long our kids stay in school. If they can get good paying jobs right out of High School then most  will stop their education there. If the job market says you need post secondary education, then we should provide it


----------



## OldLady

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to fund college for someone else's kid.  Let that kids parents do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Same logic applies to second grade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
Click to expand...

wow


----------



## Arianrhod

OldLady said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same logic applies to second grade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow
Click to expand...


That's his response to every topic.  You'll get used to it after a while.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to fund college for someone else's kid.  Let that kids parents do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Same logic applies to second grade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
Click to expand...



You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> dems support full government control of our lives so everything will be fair.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see a link on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
Click to expand...

No they weren't, they knew it was to much to force upon us.

but then we have to get hci or else

that's tyranny and not one dem doesn't support it.


forced hci is government control of our lives cradle to the grave.  and you didn't even know it.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see a link on that one
> 
> 
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't, they knew it was to much to force upon us.
> 
> but then we have to get hci or else
> 
> that's tyranny and not one dem doesn't support it.
> 
> 
> forced hci is government control of our lives cradle to the grave.  and you didn't even know it.
Click to expand...

Let's see...

Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
Do you know the Rabbi?


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same logic applies to second grade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
Click to expand...


Please get a clue and understand that those two things can't be compared in the way you do them.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's his response to every topic.  You'll get used to it after a while.
Click to expand...


Your response to such topics is that those who didn't produce the kids owe more to them than the ones who did.  

Let me put it in a simple way.  If I didn't get the pussy that produced the kid, the kid is not my responsibility.  It's about time those who got it and those who gave it up start supporting their own damn kids.


----------



## Conservative65

OldLady said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same logic applies to second grade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow
Click to expand...


Tell me why I should be the one to do for a kid what their own damn parents won't do for them.  If their own parents won't do it, explain why someone that isn't their parent should be held to a higher standard.


----------



## boedicca

"College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Conservative65

boedicca said:


> "College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.
> 
> Just sayin'.



What happens in the situations where someone now has the money to go but doesn't make the cut?  Do those of us forced to invest in it get our money back?


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> "College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happens in the situations where someone now has the money to go but doesn't make the cut?  Do those of us forced to invest in it get our money back?
Click to expand...


Say more about your imaginary scenario.  Do you believe you'll get a letter in the mail with the name of the kid you're being forced to support, and if you don't the black helicopters come and take you away?


----------



## rightwinger

boedicca said:


> "College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.
> 
> Just sayin'.


Is that what "High School for all"is?


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please get a clue and understand that those two things can't be compared in the way you do them.
Click to expand...






= you can't patch the hole in your premise.


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> find me a single thing, anything, where a dem leader wanted the government to control something and a dem sheep was against it.
> 
> anything
> 
> 
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't, they knew it was to much to force upon us.
> 
> but then we have to get hci or else
> 
> that's tyranny and not one dem doesn't support it.
> 
> 
> forced hci is government control of our lives cradle to the grave.  and you didn't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
> Do you know the Rabbi?
Click to expand...

truth and facts make you delirious?

I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please get a clue and understand that those two things can't be compared in the way you do them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> = you can't patch the hole in your premise.
Click to expand...


There is no hole in my premise.  When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.  When it comes to the college proposal, one group pay for the benefit of someone's kids who aren't paying.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> "College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happens in the situations where someone now has the money to go but doesn't make the cut?  Do those of us forced to invest in it get our money back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say more about your imaginary scenario.  Do you believe you'll get a letter in the mail with the name of the kid you're being forced to support, and if you don't the black helicopters come and take you away?
Click to expand...


No.  Just like I don't get the names of the food stamp and welfare leeches you probably say are imaginary.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail on your part
> 
> Identify where Dems advocate full government control of our lives like you claim. Do you know what full government control means?
> 
> 
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't, they knew it was to much to force upon us.
> 
> but then we have to get hci or else
> 
> that's tyranny and not one dem doesn't support it.
> 
> 
> forced hci is government control of our lives cradle to the grave.  and you didn't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
> Do you know the Rabbi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
Click to expand...


I posted Healthcare...your turn
You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't, they knew it was to much to force upon us.
> 
> but then we have to get hci or else
> 
> that's tyranny and not one dem doesn't support it.
> 
> 
> forced hci is government control of our lives cradle to the grave.  and you didn't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
> Do you know the Rabbi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
Click to expand...


Yet you support Obamacare.  If you say that isn't the government running healthcare, you're a retard.


----------



## rightwinger

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't, they knew it was to much to force upon us.
> 
> but then we have to get hci or else
> 
> that's tyranny and not one dem doesn't support it.
> 
> 
> forced hci is government control of our lives cradle to the grave.  and you didn't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
> Do you know the Rabbi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you support Obamacare.  If you say that isn't the government running healthcare, you're a retard.
Click to expand...

Government says you have to be insured. That is not running healthcare
You have a choice of where you get insurance, your doctors, pharmacy


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't, they knew it was to much to force upon us.
> 
> but then we have to get hci or else
> 
> that's tyranny and not one dem doesn't support it.
> 
> 
> forced hci is government control of our lives cradle to the grave.  and you didn't even know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
> Do you know the Rabbi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you support Obamacare.  If you say that isn't the government running healthcare, you're a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government says you have to be insured. That is not running healthcare
> You have a choice of where you get insurance, your doctors, pharmacy
> 
> That is not running healthcare
Click to expand...


When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control.  When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.

You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body.  Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please get a clue and understand that those two things can't be compared in the way you do them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> = you can't patch the hole in your premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hole in my premise.  When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.  When it comes to the college proposal, one group pay for the benefit of someone's kids who aren't paying.
Click to expand...







I wasn't talking about college. Read my post again.


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please get a clue and understand that those two things can't be compared in the way you do them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> = you can't patch the hole in your premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hole in my premise.  When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.  When it comes to the college proposal, one group pay for the benefit of someone's kids who aren't paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about college. Read my post again.
Click to expand...


You're the one that used fire departments as an example.  Many incorrectly do when talking about issues like this.  Since my neighbor pays taxes that fund fire department and so do it, everyone getting protection is paying.  When it comes to programs like college tuition, food stamps, welfare, etc., the social welfare handouts, those doing the getting aren't doing then paying and vice versa.  When I say I don't owe people a damn thing, it includes those things.


----------



## rightwinger

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
> Do you know the Rabbi?
> 
> 
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you support Obamacare.  If you say that isn't the government running healthcare, you're a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government says you have to be insured. That is not running healthcare
> You have a choice of where you get insurance, your doctors, pharmacy
> 
> That is not running healthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control.  When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.
> 
> You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body.  Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.
Click to expand...


Government says YOU are responsible for being covered. It means we are tired of bailing out your ass when you can't pay your medical bills. 

It is called personal responsibility


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please get a clue and understand that those two things can't be compared in the way you do them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> = you can't patch the hole in your premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hole in my premise.  When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.  When it comes to the college proposal, one group pay for the benefit of someone's kids who aren't paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about college. Read my post again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that used fire departments as an example.  Many incorrectly do when talking about issues like this.  Since my neighbor pays taxes that fund fire department and so do it, everyone getting protection is paying.  .
Click to expand...



You never attended grade school?


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you support Obamacare.  If you say that isn't the government running healthcare, you're a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government says you have to be insured. That is not running healthcare
> You have a choice of where you get insurance, your doctors, pharmacy
> 
> That is not running healthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control.  When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.
> 
> You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body.  Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government says YOU are responsible for being covered. It means we are tired of bailing out your ass when you can't pay your medical bills.
> 
> It is called personal responsibility
Click to expand...


When the government makes the rules about what the coverage must include, it's control.  

I'm tired of bailing out those who aren't responsible, too.  Your answer is to involved the government, as usual.  Mine is don't bail them out.  If they aren't responsible enough to do what they should be doing, let them go without.


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please get a clue and understand that those two things can't be compared in the way you do them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> = you can't patch the hole in your premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hole in my premise.  When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.  When it comes to the college proposal, one group pay for the benefit of someone's kids who aren't paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about college. Read my post again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that used fire departments as an example.  Many incorrectly do when talking about issues like this.  Since my neighbor pays taxes that fund fire department and so do it, everyone getting protection is paying.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never attended grade school?
Click to expand...


Your comparison was free college with fire departments.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> = you can't patch the hole in your premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hole in my premise.  When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.  When it comes to the college proposal, one group pay for the benefit of someone's kids who aren't paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about college. Read my post again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that used fire departments as an example.  Many incorrectly do when talking about issues like this.  Since my neighbor pays taxes that fund fire department and so do it, everyone getting protection is paying.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never attended grade school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comparison was free college with fire departments.
Click to expand...





No, it wasn't. Your feeble reading skills are a good example of how 'free' education can fail.


----------



## rightwinger

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you support Obamacare.  If you say that isn't the government running healthcare, you're a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government says you have to be insured. That is not running healthcare
> You have a choice of where you get insurance, your doctors, pharmacy
> 
> That is not running healthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control.  When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.
> 
> You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body.  Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government says YOU are responsible for being covered. It means we are tired of bailing out your ass when you can't pay your medical bills.
> 
> It is called personal responsibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the government makes the rules about what the coverage must include, it's control.
> 
> I'm tired of bailing out those who aren't responsible, too.  Your answer is to involved the government, as usual.  Mine is don't bail them out.  If they aren't responsible enough to do what they should be doing, let them go without.
Click to expand...


Government makes rules on how fast you can drive, how you build your house and how you can raise your kids

It's part of belonging to a civilized society


----------



## Ringel05

Heck if one looks at the job market, required Bachelor degrees are the new high school diplomas and have been for quite a while, especially with government jobs.  Given that, while I'm not necessarily for or against it, it makes sense to provide schooling up through the first four years of college.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you support Obamacare.  If you say that isn't the government running healthcare, you're a retard.
> 
> 
> 
> Government says you have to be insured. That is not running healthcare
> You have a choice of where you get insurance, your doctors, pharmacy
> 
> That is not running healthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control.  When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.
> 
> You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body.  Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government says YOU are responsible for being covered. It means we are tired of bailing out your ass when you can't pay your medical bills.
> 
> It is called personal responsibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the government makes the rules about what the coverage must include, it's control.
> 
> I'm tired of bailing out those who aren't responsible, too.  Your answer is to involved the government, as usual.  Mine is don't bail them out.  If they aren't responsible enough to do what they should be doing, let them go without.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government makes rules on how fast you can drive, how you build your house and how you can raise your kids
> 
> It's part of belonging to a civilized society
Click to expand...












You both suck at negotiating the social contract.


----------



## Unkotare

Ringel05 said:


> Heck if one looks at the job market, required Bachelor degrees are the new high school diplomas and have been for quite a while, especially with government jobs.  Given that, while I'm not necessarily for or against it, it makes sense to provide schooling up through the first four years of college.






No, it doesn't.


----------



## dblack

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't, they knew it was to much to force upon us.
> 
> but then we have to get hci or else
> 
> that's tyranny and not one dem doesn't support it.
> 
> 
> forced hci is government control of our lives cradle to the grave.  and you didn't even know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
> Do you know the Rabbi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you support Obamacare.  If you say that isn't the government running healthcare, you're a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government says you have to be insured. That is not running healthcare.
Click to expand...


It's even worse.


----------



## dblack

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government says you have to be insured. That is not running healthcare
> You have a choice of where you get insurance, your doctors, pharmacy
> 
> That is not running healthcare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control.  When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.
> 
> You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body.  Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government says YOU are responsible for being covered. It means we are tired of bailing out your ass when you can't pay your medical bills.
> 
> It is called personal responsibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the government makes the rules about what the coverage must include, it's control.
> 
> I'm tired of bailing out those who aren't responsible, too.  Your answer is to involved the government, as usual.  Mine is don't bail them out.  If they aren't responsible enough to do what they should be doing, let them go without.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government makes rules on how fast you can drive, how you build your house and how you can raise your kids
> 
> It's part of belonging to a civilized society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You both suck at negotiating the social contract.
Click to expand...



Near as I can tell, their version of the social contract is - "Obey".


----------



## Ringel05

Unkotare said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heck if one looks at the job market, required Bachelor degrees are the new high school diplomas and have been for quite a while, especially with government jobs.  Given that, while I'm not necessarily for or against it, it makes sense to provide schooling up through the first four years of college.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Depends on one's perspective, don't it.........


----------



## Unkotare

Ringel05 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heck if one looks at the job market, required Bachelor degrees are the new high school diplomas and have been for quite a while, especially with government jobs.  Given that, while I'm not necessarily for or against it, it makes sense to provide schooling up through the first four years of college.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on one's perspective, don't it.........
Click to expand...







No.


----------



## Ringel05

Unkotare said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heck if one looks at the job market, required Bachelor degrees are the new high school diplomas and have been for quite a while, especially with government jobs.  Given that, while I'm not necessarily for or against it, it makes sense to provide schooling up through the first four years of college.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on one's perspective, don't it.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I forgot the only opinion that matters in the world is yours, I bet you even walk on water.........


----------



## Unkotare

dblack said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control.  When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.
> 
> You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body.  Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government says YOU are responsible for being covered. It means we are tired of bailing out your ass when you can't pay your medical bills.
> 
> It is called personal responsibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the government makes the rules about what the coverage must include, it's control.
> 
> I'm tired of bailing out those who aren't responsible, too.  Your answer is to involved the government, as usual.  Mine is don't bail them out.  If they aren't responsible enough to do what they should be doing, let them go without.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government makes rules on how fast you can drive, how you build your house and how you can raise your kids
> 
> It's part of belonging to a civilized society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You both suck at negotiating the social contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Near as I can tell, their version of the social contract is - "Obey".
Click to expand...





Some sure seem to want it that way.


----------



## Unkotare

Ringel05 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heck if one looks at the job market, required Bachelor degrees are the new high school diplomas and have been for quite a while, especially with government jobs.  Given that, while I'm not necessarily for or against it, it makes sense to provide schooling up through the first four years of college.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on one's perspective, don't it.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......I bet you even walk on water.........
Click to expand...




You can too, if it's cold enough.


----------



## Ringel05

Unkotare said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heck if one looks at the job market, required Bachelor degrees are the new high school diplomas and have been for quite a while, especially with government jobs.  Given that, while I'm not necessarily for or against it, it makes sense to provide schooling up through the first four years of college.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on one's perspective, don't it.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......I bet you even walk on water.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can too, if it's cold enough.
Click to expand...

I don't have to wait for it to freeze...... I know where the stones are......... just under the surface.........


----------



## Unkotare

Ringel05 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on one's perspective, don't it.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......I bet you even walk on water.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can too, if it's cold enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to wait for it to freeze...... I know where the stones are......... just under the surface.........
Click to expand...





That's your problem, no stones.


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> "College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what "High School for all"is?
Click to expand...


We want people to be able to read and function in society.  That's not what college is designed to do.


----------



## Ringel05

Unkotare said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on one's perspective, don't it.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......I bet you even walk on water.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can too, if it's cold enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to wait for it to freeze...... I know where the stones are......... just under the surface.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your problem, no stones.
Click to expand...

Oh they're there, but now I have to strap the damn things to my knees, in ten years they might reach my ankles........


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government says you have to be insured. That is not running healthcare
> You have a choice of where you get insurance, your doctors, pharmacy
> 
> That is not running healthcare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control.  When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.
> 
> You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body.  Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government says YOU are responsible for being covered. It means we are tired of bailing out your ass when you can't pay your medical bills.
> 
> It is called personal responsibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the government makes the rules about what the coverage must include, it's control.
> 
> I'm tired of bailing out those who aren't responsible, too.  Your answer is to involved the government, as usual.  Mine is don't bail them out.  If they aren't responsible enough to do what they should be doing, let them go without.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government makes rules on how fast you can drive, how you build your house and how you can raise your kids
> 
> It's part of belonging to a civilized society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You both suck at negotiating the social contract.
Click to expand...


The social contract doesn't involve those of us who provide for ourselves being forced to provide for those who think it's owed to them.


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you support Obamacare.  If you say that isn't the government running healthcare, you're a retard.
> 
> 
> 
> Government says you have to be insured. That is not running healthcare
> You have a choice of where you get insurance, your doctors, pharmacy
> 
> That is not running healthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control.  When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.
> 
> You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body.  Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government says YOU are responsible for being covered. It means we are tired of bailing out your ass when you can't pay your medical bills.
> 
> It is called personal responsibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the government makes the rules about what the coverage must include, it's control.
> 
> I'm tired of bailing out those who aren't responsible, too.  Your answer is to involved the government, as usual.  Mine is don't bail them out.  If they aren't responsible enough to do what they should be doing, let them go without.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government makes rules on how fast you can drive, how you build your house and how you can raise your kids
> 
> It's part of belonging to a civilized society
Click to expand...


It's part of the government controlling.  That they've convinced you about the society part shows you're willing to grab your ankles and take it in the ass from them.  Not surprised.


----------



## rightwinger

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> "College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what "High School for all"is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want people to be able to read and function in society.  That's not what college is designed to do.
Click to expand...


Typical conservative stuck in the 19th century


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> "College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what "High School for all"is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want people to be able to read and function in society.  That's not what college is designed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical conservative stuck in the 19th century
Click to expand...


That you thing someone who didn't create a child is more responsible for that child's education than the one who did is the typical Liberal mentality.  It matters not what century.  

If the little bastard's own parents won't do for him/her, it's not my place to do for him/her.  I thought you believed in personal responsibility.  Guess not since you support someone other than the kid's parents being responsible for funding their education.


----------



## rightwinger

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> "College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what "High School for all"is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want people to be able to read and function in society.  That's not what college is designed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical conservative stuck in the 19th century
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you thing someone who didn't create a child is more responsible for that child's education than the one who did is the typical Liberal mentality.  It matters not what century.
> 
> If the little bastard's own parents won't do for him/her, it's not my place to do for him/her.  I thought you believed in personal responsibility.  Guess not since you support someone other than the kid's parents being responsible for funding their education.
Click to expand...

Not worth arguing with an anarchist


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> "College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what "High School for all"is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want people to be able to read and function in society.  That's not what college is designed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical conservative stuck in the 19th century
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you thing someone who didn't create a child is more responsible for that child's education than the one who did is the typical Liberal mentality.  It matters not what century.
> 
> If the little bastard's own parents won't do for him/her, it's not my place to do for him/her.  I thought you believed in personal responsibility.  Guess not since you support someone other than the kid's parents being responsible for funding their education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not worth arguing with an anarchist
Click to expand...


Not thinking that it's the government's place to tell me to do for a kid what their own parents won't do for them doesn't make me an anarchist.  It makes me pragmatic.  

Educating you is like trying to educate a communist.  It's impossible.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control.  When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.
> 
> You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body.  Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government says YOU are responsible for being covered. It means we are tired of bailing out your ass when you can't pay your medical bills.
> 
> It is called personal responsibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the government makes the rules about what the coverage must include, it's control.
> 
> I'm tired of bailing out those who aren't responsible, too.  Your answer is to involved the government, as usual.  Mine is don't bail them out.  If they aren't responsible enough to do what they should be doing, let them go without.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government makes rules on how fast you can drive, how you build your house and how you can raise your kids
> 
> It's part of belonging to a civilized society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You both suck at negotiating the social contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The social contract doesn't involve those of us who provide for ourselves being forced to provide for those who think it's owed to them.
Click to expand...






It does. Unfortunately so sometimes, but it does.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.



Really?  So much for your "Welfare queen" premise, then, huh?


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  So much for your "Welfare queen" premise, then, huh?
Click to expand...


Not hardly.  The welfare queen still gets many things for which she doesn't pay and comes from the pot to which she doesn't contribute.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same logic applies to second grade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
Click to expand...


Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.

Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.


----------



## Conservative65

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
Click to expand...


They won't tell you a direct benefit.  They'll speculate that it will mean someone will get a better job and then pay taxes.  There's no proof to that claim but they will claim it.  

As far as your concern about your house catching if fire starts in another one, that is true.  While I don't know your living situation and won't speculate, the way some houses are built so close together today, if the fire department has a working fire at one, they easily have a working fire in at least one more.


----------



## Arianrhod

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  So much for your "Welfare queen" premise, then, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly.  The welfare queen still gets many things for which she doesn't pay and comes from the pot to which she doesn't contribute.
Click to expand...


So is it EVERYONE who pays for fire protection or not?


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  So much for your "Welfare queen" premise, then, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly.  The welfare queen still gets many things for which she doesn't pay and comes from the pot to which she doesn't contribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is it EVERYONE who pays for fire protection or not?
Click to expand...


But not everyone provides all sorts of other things.  

Another disingenuous post by another Liberal asshole.  When those baby mamas quit producing bastards they can't feed and expect the rest of us to do for them, I'll quit calling them welfare queens.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Conservative65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They won't tell you a direct benefit.  They'll speculate that it will mean someone will get a better job and then pay taxes.  There's no proof to that claim but they will claim it.
> 
> As far as your concern about your house catching if fire starts in another one, that is true.  While I don't know your living situation and won't speculate, the way some houses are built so close together today, if the fire department has a working fire at one, they easily have a working fire in at least one more.
Click to expand...


In southern Arizona, it's largely a factor of how incredibly dry it is here nearly all year.  All it takes for a fire to spread is a few sparks blowing around.  It's why fireworks and trash-burning are so heavily regulated here.  We've even had years when the official city fireworks display on the 4th of July was canceled because the fire hazard rating was so high.  The fire department pretty routinely details someone to spray down the roofs of the neighboring houses in a fire to make sure they don't catch a flaming cinder.


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
Click to expand...

You really can't work this one out for yourself?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
Click to expand...


The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?

No, I'm really going to need some help here.


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
Click to expand...


You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you know there's nothing you wouldn't support the government running, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't, they knew it was to much to force upon us.
> 
> but then we have to get hci or else
> 
> that's tyranny and not one dem doesn't support it.
> 
> 
> forced hci is government control of our lives cradle to the grave.  and you didn't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
> Do you know the Rabbi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
Click to expand...

b/c hci is cradle to the grave and dems passed it, making your example bullshit.

why not admit there's nothing you don't want the government to run or regulate?


----------



## rightwinger

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They won't tell you a direct benefit.  They'll speculate that it will mean someone will get a better job and then pay taxes.  There's no proof to that claim but they will claim it.
> 
> As far as your concern about your house catching if fire starts in another one, that is true.  While I don't know your living situation and won't speculate, the way some houses are built so close together today, if the fire department has a working fire at one, they easily have a working fire in at least one more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In southern Arizona, it's largely a factor of how incredibly dry it is here nearly all year.  All it takes for a fire to spread is a few sparks blowing around.  It's why fireworks and trash-burning are so heavily regulated here.  We've even had years when the official city fireworks display on the 4th of July was canceled because the fire hazard rating was so high.  The fire department pretty routinely details someone to spray down the roofs of the neighboring houses in a fire to make sure they don't catch a flaming cinder.
Click to expand...

Nanny Government


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
Click to expand...


You're assuming that the government paying for people's college is somehow going to lower prices.  Ridiculous.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to identify anything close to "full control"
> 
> You want an example? Universal Health insurance. Obama advocated a government controlled health system like Canada or England......Dems were against it
> 
> OK...now it's your turn
> Ready to give me an example of full government control?
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't, they knew it was to much to force upon us.
> 
> but then we have to get hci or else
> 
> that's tyranny and not one dem doesn't support it.
> 
> 
> forced hci is government control of our lives cradle to the grave.  and you didn't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
> Do you know the Rabbi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> b/c hci is cradle to the grave and dems passed it, making your example bullshit.
> 
> why not admit there's nothing you don't want the government to run or regulate?
Click to expand...

Another failure on your part....why don't you just save yourself the humiliation and admit you got nothing?


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't, they knew it was to much to force upon us.
> 
> but then we have to get hci or else
> 
> that's tyranny and not one dem doesn't support it.
> 
> 
> forced hci is government control of our lives cradle to the grave.  and you didn't even know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
> Do you know the Rabbi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> b/c hci is cradle to the grave and dems passed it, making your example bullshit.
> 
> why not admit there's nothing you don't want the government to run or regulate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another failure on your part....why don't you just save yourself the humiliation and admit you got nothing?
Click to expand...

B/c I proved myself right.  With actual facts.

You can't post anything you don't want the government to run b/c there is nothing you don't want the government to run b/c there's so little the government doesn't run.

we don't even have property rights anymore


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
> Do you know the Rabbi?
> 
> 
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> b/c hci is cradle to the grave and dems passed it, making your example bullshit.
> 
> why not admit there's nothing you don't want the government to run or regulate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another failure on your part....why don't you just save yourself the humiliation and admit you got nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> B/c I proved myself right.  With actual facts.
> 
> You can't post anything you don't want the government to run b/c there is nothing you don't want the government to run b/c there's so little the government doesn't run.
> 
> we don't even have property rights anymore
Click to expand...

Still waiting....you have yet to provide a single example

What is known as...FAIL


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> b/c hci is cradle to the grave and dems passed it, making your example bullshit.
> 
> why not admit there's nothing you don't want the government to run or regulate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another failure on your part....why don't you just save yourself the humiliation and admit you got nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> B/c I proved myself right.  With actual facts.
> 
> You can't post anything you don't want the government to run b/c there is nothing you don't want the government to run b/c there's so little the government doesn't run.
> 
> we don't even have property rights anymore
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting....you have yet to provide a single example
> 
> What is known as...FAIL
Click to expand...

and yet, I did.

On a scale of 1 - potato

how ignorant are you?


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming that the government paying for people's college is somehow going to lower prices.  Ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Prove it.  Or just issue the standard "anything the government touches turns to shit" speech.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Arianrhod

Vigilante said:


>


----------



## Vigilante

Arianrhod said:


> Vigilante said:
Click to expand...


----------



## Conservative65

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't, they knew it was to much to force upon us.
> 
> but then we have to get hci or else
> 
> that's tyranny and not one dem doesn't support it.
> 
> 
> forced hci is government control of our lives cradle to the grave.  and you didn't even know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Demand and example and then throw out any examples provided
> Do you know the Rabbi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truth and facts make you delirious?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to post the one thing you don't want to the government to run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted Healthcare...your turn
> You have still failed to provide an example of full government control.
> Why not just admit you were exaggerating ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> b/c hci is cradle to the grave and dems passed it, making your example bullshit.
> 
> why not admit there's nothing you don't want the government to run or regulate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another failure on your part....why don't you just save yourself the humiliation and admit you got nothing?
Click to expand...


I have and have earned what you think the government should now force me to help provide to others who won't earn it themselves. That's all I need to know.


----------



## Conservative65

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
Click to expand...


It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.

Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
Click to expand...


You can't work out something that doesn't exist.  If it had a direct benefit, you'd say what it was.  Since you don't, seems you haven't worked it out.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
Click to expand...










If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.


----------



## OldLady

Conservative65 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me why I should be the one to do for a kid what their own damn parents won't do for them.  If their own parents won't do it, explain why someone that isn't their parent should be held to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

A lot of people share your point of view, but I think it's probably a good thing for society in general that some people have a broader perspective.  
John Donne explained it much better than I can:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
We're all on this rock together; when we help each other, I think we end up helping ourselves to a better world in the long run.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't work out something that doesn't exist.  If it had a direct benefit, you'd say what it was.  Since you don't, seems you haven't worked it out.
Click to expand...






Take at least 1/3 of the kids currently in HS and put them on the street tomorrow. Would that result in a cost or a benefit to society, genius?


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't work out something that doesn't exist.  If it had a direct benefit, you'd say what it was.  Since you don't, seems you haven't worked it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take at least 1/3 of the kids currently in HS and put them on the street tomorrow. Would that result in a cost or a benefit to society, genius?
Click to expand...


It would only be a cost if the government demands we take care of them.  You seem to think a piece of paper will automatically benefit society.


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
Click to expand...






There is more than one kind of fire.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't work out something that doesn't exist.  If it had a direct benefit, you'd say what it was.  Since you don't, seems you haven't worked it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take at least 1/3 of the kids currently in HS and put them on the street tomorrow. Would that result in a cost or a benefit to society, genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would only be a cost if the government demands we take care of them.  ...
Click to expand...



Wrong again, you myopic moron.


----------



## Conservative65

OldLady said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me why I should be the one to do for a kid what their own damn parents won't do for them.  If their own parents won't do it, explain why someone that isn't their parent should be held to a higher standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of people share your point of view, but I think it's probably a good thing for society in general that some people have a broader perspective.
> John Donne explained it much better than I can:
> “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
> We're all on this rock together; when we help each other, I think we end up helping ourselves to a better world in the long run.
Click to expand...


The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping.  The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing.  I don't owe someone else's kid college.  That's their parents job.  If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't work out something that doesn't exist.  If it had a direct benefit, you'd say what it was.  Since you don't, seems you haven't worked it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take at least 1/3 of the kids currently in HS and put them on the street tomorrow. Would that result in a cost or a benefit to society, genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would only be a cost if the government demands we take care of them.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, you myopic moron.
Click to expand...


My suggestion is that if you want someone to go to college, pay their tuition out of your pocket.  Only a moron believes it's his place to do something for a kid that his own parents won't do.


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more than one kind of fire.
Click to expand...


When it comes to funding college for someone whose own parents won't do it, I'll let that fire burn.


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
Click to expand...




You are confusing college and HS. Read my original post.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't work out something that doesn't exist.  If it had a direct benefit, you'd say what it was.  Since you don't, seems you haven't worked it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take at least 1/3 of the kids currently in HS and put them on the street tomorrow. Would that result in a cost or a benefit to society, genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would only be a cost if the government demands we take care of them.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, you myopic moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My suggestion is that if you want someone to go to college, pay their tuition out of your pocket.  Only a moron believes it's his place to do something for a kid that his own parents won't do.
Click to expand...






You dropped out before learning how to read very well.


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing college and HS. Read my original post.
Click to expand...


What you're confusing is thinking that both are owed to someone.  I don't have a problem with funding education through the 12th grade.  My problems at that level come with the federal government sticking their nose in it rather than it being run where it should be run on the state/local level.  I want people to be able to read, write, do basic math, etc. in order they function in society.  After that, it's their responsibility or their parents to fund it.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more than one kind of fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to funding college for someone whose own parents won't do it, I'll let that fire burn.
Click to expand...





Are the drugs making it hard for you to concentrate?


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't work out something that doesn't exist.  If it had a direct benefit, you'd say what it was.  Since you don't, seems you haven't worked it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take at least 1/3 of the kids currently in HS and put them on the street tomorrow. Would that result in a cost or a benefit to society, genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would only be a cost if the government demands we take care of them.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, you myopic moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My suggestion is that if you want someone to go to college, pay their tuition out of your pocket.  Only a moron believes it's his place to do something for a kid that his own parents won't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dropped out before learning how to read very well.
Click to expand...


I did?  I guess that's why I have three diplomas hanging on my wall, two of which are advanced degrees.


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more than one kind of fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to funding college for someone whose own parents won't do it, I'll let that fire burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the drugs making it hard for you to concentrate?
Click to expand...


Is your head up your entitlement minded ass reducing the oxygen level to your brain?


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't work out something that doesn't exist.  If it had a direct benefit, you'd say what it was.  Since you don't, seems you haven't worked it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take at least 1/3 of the kids currently in HS and put them on the street tomorrow. Would that result in a cost or a benefit to society, genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would only be a cost if the government demands we take care of them.  .
Click to expand...




Don't "take care of them" at all. Would the situation laid out above ( not just what you want to imagine) result in a cost or benefit to society?


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more than one kind of fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to funding college for someone whose own parents won't do it, I'll let that fire burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the drugs making it hard for you to concentrate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your head up your entitlement minded ass reducing the oxygen level to your brain?
Click to expand...




You are really not paying attention, dopey.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take at least 1/3 of the kids currently in HS and put them on the street tomorrow. Would that result in a cost or a benefit to society, genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would only be a cost if the government demands we take care of them.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, you myopic moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My suggestion is that if you want someone to go to college, pay their tuition out of your pocket.  Only a moron believes it's his place to do something for a kid that his own parents won't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dropped out before learning how to read very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did?  I guess that's why I have three diplomas hanging on my wall, two of which are advanced degrees.
Click to expand...







And you never learned to read?


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
Click to expand...






Well?


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
Click to expand...


Didn't think you had a valid answer.  Seems I was correct.


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would only be a cost if the government demands we take care of them.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, you myopic moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My suggestion is that if you want someone to go to college, pay their tuition out of your pocket.  Only a moron believes it's his place to do something for a kid that his own parents won't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dropped out before learning how to read very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did?  I guess that's why I have three diplomas hanging on my wall, two of which are advanced degrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you never learned to read?
Click to expand...


I read very well.  I completely understand what you're saying.  I don't think you do.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same logic applies to second grade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
Click to expand...







For the reading impaired, note where I am referring to K-12 vs college.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't think you had a valid answer.  Seems I was correct.
Click to expand...





Why are you avoiding?


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, you myopic moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My suggestion is that if you want someone to go to college, pay their tuition out of your pocket.  Only a moron believes it's his place to do something for a kid that his own parents won't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dropped out before learning how to read very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did?  I guess that's why I have three diplomas hanging on my wall, two of which are advanced degrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you never learned to read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read very well.  .....
Click to expand...




Apparently not.


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't think you had a valid answer.  Seems I was correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you avoiding?
Click to expand...


I've made it clear where I stand.  You avoid answering why it's more of a responsibility of someone that isn't a parent to help pay for college than the parent.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't think you had a valid answer.  Seems I was correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you avoiding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've made it clear where I stand.
Click to expand...




Then why are you afraid to answer? Why isn't it the individual responsibility of an adult? You some kind of communist?


----------



## OldLady

Conservative65 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me why I should be the one to do for a kid what their own damn parents won't do for them.  If their own parents won't do it, explain why someone that isn't their parent should be held to a higher standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of people share your point of view, but I think it's probably a good thing for society in general that some people have a broader perspective.
> John Donne explained it much better than I can:
> “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
> We're all on this rock together; when we help each other, I think we end up helping ourselves to a better world in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping.  The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing.  I don't owe someone else's kid college.  That's their parents job.  If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.
Click to expand...

I understand your position.  Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help _their _kids get to college if they attend.  It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works.  Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax.  The bill won't make it.


----------



## Conservative65

OldLady said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> wow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me why I should be the one to do for a kid what their own damn parents won't do for them.  If their own parents won't do it, explain why someone that isn't their parent should be held to a higher standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of people share your point of view, but I think it's probably a good thing for society in general that some people have a broader perspective.
> John Donne explained it much better than I can:
> “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
> We're all on this rock together; when we help each other, I think we end up helping ourselves to a better world in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping.  The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing.  I don't owe someone else's kid college.  That's their parents job.  If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand your position.  Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help _their _kids get to college if they attend.  It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works.  Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax.  The bill won't make it.
Click to expand...


If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed.  If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things.  Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?  

My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them?  You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist.  You can claim it MIGHT do this or that.  What about those who get help and aren't successful.  What happens for those who don't graduate?  Do they have to pay back the money?


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why I should be the one to do for a kid what their own damn parents won't do for them.  If their own parents won't do it, explain why someone that isn't their parent should be held to a higher standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of people share your point of view, but I think it's probably a good thing for society in general that some people have a broader perspective.
> John Donne explained it much better than I can:
> “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
> We're all on this rock together; when we help each other, I think we end up helping ourselves to a better world in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping.  The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing.  I don't owe someone else's kid college.  That's their parents job.  If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand your position.  Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help _their _kids get to college if they attend.  It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works.  Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax.  The bill won't make it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed.  If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things.  Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed? .....
Click to expand...



Holy crap, you're stupid.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
Click to expand...


Because most likely, the "adult" in question is 18 and just graduated high school and has little or no job experience and is still living at home and being otherwise supported by their parents.

But hey, if they're living independently, then the responsibility is theirs.  But notice that, either way you figure it, the responsibility is NOT people who don't know the student and have no stake whatsoever in their continued education.


----------



## Cecilie1200

OldLady said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me why I should be the one to do for a kid what their own damn parents won't do for them.  If their own parents won't do it, explain why someone that isn't their parent should be held to a higher standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of people share your point of view, but I think it's probably a good thing for society in general that some people have a broader perspective.
> John Donne explained it much better than I can:
> “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
> We're all on this rock together; when we help each other, I think we end up helping ourselves to a better world in the long run.
Click to expand...


I would rebut by saying that one does not help a person by encouraging dependence and an entitlement mindset.  It is of much greater help to someone going into college to make THEM responsible for the costs and thus more conscious of the need to spend the money wisely.


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because most likely, the "adult" in question is 18 and just graduated high school and has little or no job experience and is still living at home and being otherwise supported by their parents.......
Click to expand...




If the adult in question is an adult he should support himself.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't work out something that doesn't exist.  If it had a direct benefit, you'd say what it was.  Since you don't, seems you haven't worked it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take at least 1/3 of the kids currently in HS and put them on the street tomorrow. Would that result in a cost or a benefit to society, genius?
Click to expand...


High school ain't college, Chuckles.  Take a look at our college campuses right now and tell me those spoiled little assholes are a benefit to society.

Victims and Microaggressions: Why 2015 Was The Year Students Lost Their Minds

(I don't normally pay attention to the Daily Beast, but in this case, they'll do as a demonstration.)

I guarantee you that the asswipes out there screeching and shouting are NOT the ones paying out of their own pockets, nor are they at all likely to graduate college with a useful degree and obtain gainful employment.  They're a lot more likely to spend the rest of their lives screeching and protesting and being a nuisance, either for fun or profit.

The ones who are actually going to benefit society are in their dorm rooms, studying and wishing the protesters would shut the hell up so they can concentrate.  They're also taking responsibility for their own educations.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because most likely, the "adult" in question is 18 and just graduated high school and has little or no job experience and is still living at home and being otherwise supported by their parents.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the adult in question is an adult he should support himself.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant and tangential.  Support himself or not, that's between him and his family.  The operative point is that, either way, _I _shouldn't be paying to send him to college.


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because most likely, the "adult" in question is 18 and just graduated high school and has little or no job experience and is still living at home and being otherwise supported by their parents.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the adult in question is an adult he should support himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and tangential.  Support himself or not, that's between him and his family.  The operative point is that, either way, _I _shouldn't be paying to send him to college.
Click to expand...



Why should anyone be if he is an adult?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing college and HS. Read my original post.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not.  YOU are confusing them by bringing high school into a discussion of free college in the first place.  I have been steadfastly addressing the question of taxpayers funding people's COLLEGE educations, and will continue to do so.  If you want to digress and blur lines by constantly reverting back to high school, that's your problem.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because most likely, the "adult" in question is 18 and just graduated high school and has little or no job experience and is still living at home and being otherwise supported by their parents.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the adult in question is an adult he should support himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and tangential.  Support himself or not, that's between him and his family.  The operative point is that, either way, _I _shouldn't be paying to send him to college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be if he is an adult?
Click to expand...


Why is it relevant to the topic of taxpayer-funded college?


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't work out something that doesn't exist.  If it had a direct benefit, you'd say what it was.  Since you don't, seems you haven't worked it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take at least 1/3 of the kids currently in HS and put them on the street tomorrow. Would that result in a cost or a benefit to society, genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> High school ain't college......
Click to expand...



Yeah, that's a distinction I have made several times now. Congratulations of being a better reader than whatshisass.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now think about that for a second.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the reading impaired, note where I am referring to K-12 vs college.
Click to expand...


For the reading-impaired, note where the thread isn't about K-12.


----------



## Samson

Unkotare said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because most likely, the "adult" in question is 18 and just graduated high school and has little or no job experience and is still living at home and being otherwise supported by their parents.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the adult in question is an adult he should support himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and tangential.  Support himself or not, that's between him and his family.  The operative point is that, either way, _I _shouldn't be paying to send him to college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be if he is an adult?
Click to expand...


......

Dense.


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> ...... Take a look at our college campuses right now and tell me those spoiled little assholes are a benefit to society.........




I have, and a great many certainly are. However, don't make the same mistake as whatshisass and conflate two different things.


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college.  With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.
> 
> I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid.  I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids.  That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them.  NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the reading impaired, note where I am referring to K-12 vs college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the reading-impaired, note where the thread isn't about K-12.
Click to expand...



Note the original post that confused whatshisass so much.


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> ......
> 
> I guarantee you that the asswipes out there screeching and shouting are NOT the ones paying out of their own pockets, nor are they at all likely to graduate college with a useful degree and obtain gainful employment.  They're a lot more likely to spend the rest of their lives screeching and protesting and being a nuisance, either for fun or profit.
> 
> The ones who are actually going to benefit society are in their dorm rooms, studying and wishing the protesters would shut the hell up so they can concentrate.  They're also taking responsibility for their own educations.



I believe you. Now show the proof (since you gave a guarantee and all).


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing college and HS. Read my original post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.  YOU are confusing them by bringing high school into a discussion of free college in the first place.  ......
Click to expand...



You have to try a little harder to follow along with the discussion.


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because most likely, the "adult" in question is 18 and just graduated high school and has little or no job experience and is still living at home and being otherwise supported by their parents.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the adult in question is an adult he should support himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and tangential.  Support himself or not, that's between him and his family.  The operative point is that, either way, _I _shouldn't be paying to send him to college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be if he is an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it relevant to the topic of taxpayer-funded college?
Click to expand...



It's the exact principle that whatshisass keeps referring to.


----------



## Unkotare

Samson said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because most likely, the "adult" in question is 18 and just graduated high school and has little or no job experience and is still living at home and being otherwise supported by their parents.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the adult in question is an adult he should support himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and tangential.  Support himself or not, that's between him and his family.  The operative point is that, either way, _I _shouldn't be paying to send him to college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be if he is an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> Dense.
Click to expand...




Not much of an answer.


----------



## OldLady

Conservative65 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why I should be the one to do for a kid what their own damn parents won't do for them.  If their own parents won't do it, explain why someone that isn't their parent should be held to a higher standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of people share your point of view, but I think it's probably a good thing for society in general that some people have a broader perspective.
> John Donne explained it much better than I can:
> “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
> We're all on this rock together; when we help each other, I think we end up helping ourselves to a better world in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping.  The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing.  I don't owe someone else's kid college.  That's their parents job.  If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand your position.  Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help _their _kids get to college if they attend.  It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works.  Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax.  The bill won't make it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed.  If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things.  Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?
> 
> My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them?  You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist.  You can claim it MIGHT do this or that.  What about those who get help and aren't successful.  What happens for those who don't graduate?  Do they have to pay back the money?
Click to expand...

First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did.  College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future.  This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all?  How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back.  No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth.  The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore.  But that's a different thread.  Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all.  I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group.  It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> I guarantee you that the asswipes out there screeching and shouting are NOT the ones paying out of their own pockets, nor are they at all likely to graduate college with a useful degree and obtain gainful employment.  They're a lot more likely to spend the rest of their lives screeching and protesting and being a nuisance, either for fun or profit.
> 
> The ones who are actually going to benefit society are in their dorm rooms, studying and wishing the protesters would shut the hell up so they can concentrate.  They're also taking responsibility for their own educations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you. Now show the proof (since you gave a guarantee and all).
Click to expand...


If common sense doesn't work for you, I can't help you.  People who are personally on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars for a college degree don't waste their time hanging around in mobs for days on end, whinging about "microaggressions".  Likewise for people who've worked to earn scholarships and need to maintain a GPA to hold onto it.

Furthermore, anyone who thinks mobbing the administration and posturing for the media is a productive use of their college time clearly doesn't have a mindset that lends itself to being a hardworking, productive member of society.  Maybe they'll grow out of it, more likely they won't (given the evidence that our society in general is becoming a dumbed-down bunch of slackers).  I personally don't wish to bet my tax money on them doing so, particularly when we always return to the fact that THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead.  Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.
> 
> Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing college and HS. Read my original post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.  YOU are confusing them by bringing high school into a discussion of free college in the first place.  ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try a little harder to follow along with the discussion.
Click to expand...


No, I don't.  YOU have to try a little harder to stick to the fucking topic.


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> I guarantee you that the asswipes out there screeching and shouting are NOT the ones paying out of their own pockets, nor are they at all likely to graduate college with a useful degree and obtain gainful employment.  They're a lot more likely to spend the rest of their lives screeching and protesting and being a nuisance, either for fun or profit.
> 
> The ones who are actually going to benefit society are in their dorm rooms, studying and wishing the protesters would shut the hell up so they can concentrate.  They're also taking responsibility for their own educations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you. Now show the proof (since you gave a guarantee and all).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If common sense doesn't work for you, I can't help you. ......
Click to expand...



You gave a guarantee. Were you lying about that?


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing college and HS. Read my original post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.  YOU are confusing them by bringing high school into a discussion of free college in the first place.  ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try a little harder to follow along with the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't.  .......
Click to expand...




That's why you keep getting confused.


----------



## Conservative65

OldLady said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why I should be the one to do for a kid what their own damn parents won't do for them.  If their own parents won't do it, explain why someone that isn't their parent should be held to a higher standard.
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people share your point of view, but I think it's probably a good thing for society in general that some people have a broader perspective.
> John Donne explained it much better than I can:
> “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
> We're all on this rock together; when we help each other, I think we end up helping ourselves to a better world in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping.  The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing.  I don't owe someone else's kid college.  That's their parents job.  If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand your position.  Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help _their _kids get to college if they attend.  It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works.  Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax.  The bill won't make it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed.  If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things.  Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?
> 
> My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them?  You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist.  You can claim it MIGHT do this or that.  What about those who get help and aren't successful.  What happens for those who don't graduate?  Do they have to pay back the money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did.  College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future.  This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
> Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all?  How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
> And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back.  No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth.  The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore.  But that's a different thread.  Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all.  I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group.  It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.
Click to expand...


More people my age finished college than their parents.  That's a fact.  Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it.  If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?

So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially.  So much for selling your idea of an investment.  Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?


----------



## OldLady

Conservative65 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people share your point of view, but I think it's probably a good thing for society in general that some people have a broader perspective.
> John Donne explained it much better than I can:
> “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
> We're all on this rock together; when we help each other, I think we end up helping ourselves to a better world in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping.  The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing.  I don't owe someone else's kid college.  That's their parents job.  If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand your position.  Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help _their _kids get to college if they attend.  It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works.  Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax.  The bill won't make it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed.  If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things.  Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?
> 
> My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them?  You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist.  You can claim it MIGHT do this or that.  What about those who get help and aren't successful.  What happens for those who don't graduate?  Do they have to pay back the money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did.  College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future.  This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
> Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all?  How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
> And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back.  No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth.  The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore.  But that's a different thread.  Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all.  I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group.  It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More people my age finished college than their parents.  That's a fact.  Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it.  If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?
> 
> So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially.  So much for selling your idea of an investment.  Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?
Click to expand...


How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job?  Have you tried that lately?  
And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.


----------



## Conservative65

OldLady said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping.  The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing.  I don't owe someone else's kid college.  That's their parents job.  If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your position.  Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help _their _kids get to college if they attend.  It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works.  Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax.  The bill won't make it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed.  If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things.  Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?
> 
> My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them?  You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist.  You can claim it MIGHT do this or that.  What about those who get help and aren't successful.  What happens for those who don't graduate?  Do they have to pay back the money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did.  College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future.  This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
> Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all?  How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
> And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back.  No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth.  The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore.  But that's a different thread.  Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all.  I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group.  It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More people my age finished college than their parents.  That's a fact.  Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it.  If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?
> 
> So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially.  So much for selling your idea of an investment.  Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job?  Have you tried that lately?
> And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
> Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.
Click to expand...


Not my problem.  You don't seem to care that those of us responsible enough to pay for our own kids have to pay more because someone else's parents won't do what we do.  

I graduated 3x, two of which are advanced degrees, in order that I didn't have to work a low skilled job.  That I did doesn't mean, by default, it's my responsibility to do for a kid what his/her own parents won't do.  

If you say more could have or would have, provide the verifiable, valid, and reliable statistics.  Until you can, nothing you say is anything more than a bleeding heart thinking someone that doesn't have something should have it handed to him/her simply because they want it.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't work this one out for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?
> 
> No, I'm really going to need some help here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not only familiar with the current curriculum in every state university in America, but you also know it wouldn't change once tuitions were rolled back to where they were in the 1950s and 1960s?  Remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you think "free college" at those state universities is something that should exist.  Just another Liberal, who doesn't have the guts to call himself a Democrat, thinking those who didn't produce the kids owe something to them their own sorry parents won't provide.
> 
> Why are you opposed to the parents of these kids funding their own kid's college?  Why do you think it's the personal responsibility of someone that isn't their parent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about college, why is it the "responsibility" of the individual's parents? You keep making that assumption. We are presumably talking about people who are adults at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
Click to expand...





Well?


----------



## Cecilie1200

OldLady said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is only a portion of those on the rock are helping.  The rest of them are having the help handed to them for nothing.  I don't owe someone else's kid college.  That's their parents job.  If their parents can't do it, it's not my place to do for them what their own parents won't do.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your position.  Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help _their _kids get to college if they attend.  It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works.  Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax.  The bill won't make it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed.  If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things.  Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?
> 
> My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them?  You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist.  You can claim it MIGHT do this or that.  What about those who get help and aren't successful.  What happens for those who don't graduate?  Do they have to pay back the money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did.  College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future.  This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
> Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all?  How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
> And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back.  No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth.  The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore.  But that's a different thread.  Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all.  I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group.  It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More people my age finished college than their parents.  That's a fact.  Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it.  If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?
> 
> So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially.  So much for selling your idea of an investment.  Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job?  Have you tried that lately?
> And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
> Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.
Click to expand...


If they're just going to be working minimum wage anyway, why are they bothering to go to college?  Wasn't the whole point of a college degree to get a BETTER-than-minimum-wage job?


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your position.  Mine is, those kids whose parents can't help them get to college will be in a better position to help _their _kids get to college if they attend.  It's a long-run perspective, I know, but study after study has shown that it works.  Maybe your kids won't have to help others so much....Anyway, relax.  The bill won't make it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed.  If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things.  Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?
> 
> My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them?  You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist.  You can claim it MIGHT do this or that.  What about those who get help and aren't successful.  What happens for those who don't graduate?  Do they have to pay back the money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did.  College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future.  This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
> Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all?  How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
> And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back.  No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth.  The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore.  But that's a different thread.  Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all.  I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group.  It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More people my age finished college than their parents.  That's a fact.  Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it.  If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?
> 
> So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially.  So much for selling your idea of an investment.  Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job?  Have you tried that lately?
> And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
> Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they're just going to be working minimum wage anyway, why are they bothering to go to college?  Wasn't the whole point of a college degree to get a BETTER-than-minimum-wage job?
Click to expand...


Is it common in your experience for people to get their dream job right out of college?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it has worked so well in the past, why is the same thing still being proposed.  If, as you say, it's made things better over the long run, why is there more and more of a demand for such things.  Wouldn't it stop sooner or later if the results were what you claimed?
> 
> My position is if a parent won't help their own kids they produced, why does it default to those who didn't produce them?  You can't provide a valid answer because one doesn't exist.  You can claim it MIGHT do this or that.  What about those who get help and aren't successful.  What happens for those who don't graduate?  Do they have to pay back the money?
> 
> 
> 
> First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did.  College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future.  This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
> Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all?  How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
> And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back.  No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth.  The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore.  But that's a different thread.  Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all.  I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group.  It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More people my age finished college than their parents.  That's a fact.  Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it.  If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?
> 
> So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially.  So much for selling your idea of an investment.  Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job?  Have you tried that lately?
> And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
> Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they're just going to be working minimum wage anyway, why are they bothering to go to college?  Wasn't the whole point of a college degree to get a BETTER-than-minimum-wage job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it common in your experience for people to get their dream job right out of college?
Click to expand...


Big difference between "not getting your dream job" and "spending tens of thousands on a degree so you can get the same job you could have had right out of high school."

If you graduate college and still can't move out of minimum wage, you did it wrong.  Period.  Hell, I did better than minimum wage at 20, just out of _secretarial school,_ with no college at all.


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, research has shown over and over that young people are far more likely to attend college if one or both parents did.  College graduates also make much more money than people with only a high school diploma, allowing them to fund college for their kids in the future.  This is not a MIGHT, is it is a FACT.
> Second, since when, except for awhile in New York City and California, did we ever offer free college to all?  How can you refer to it working so well in the past if it's not been done?
> And no, I wouldn't make drop-outs pay it back.  No education is ever really wasted, even if they didn't get a degree's worth.  The reason there is more of a demand for college education is that our kids are not receiving a good education in high school anymore.  But that's a different thread.  Honestly, I'd rather see a focus on improving high school education and figuring out what's gone wrong there than dumping huge amounts into funding college for all.  I teach drop outs and people stuck in that remedial courses group.  It's just plain sickening how little you can know and still graduate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More people my age finished college than their parents.  That's a fact.  Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it.  If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?
> 
> So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially.  So much for selling your idea of an investment.  Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job?  Have you tried that lately?
> And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
> Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they're just going to be working minimum wage anyway, why are they bothering to go to college?  Wasn't the whole point of a college degree to get a BETTER-than-minimum-wage job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it common in your experience for people to get their dream job right out of college?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between "not getting your dream job" and "spending tens of thousands on a degree so you can get the same job you could have had right out of high school."
> 
> If you graduate college and still can't move out of minimum wage, you did it wrong.  Period.  Hell, I did better than minimum wage at 20, just out of _secretarial school,_ with no college at all.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, but situations vary based on location, market, and your field.  The advice used to be "Go into IT; they'll always need programmers"...until they didn't.  "There's a nursing shortage; they'll always need nurses."  Well, maybe, until that changes.

So unless you plan to live with your parents for years, you take whatever's available to earn some income and build your résumé (some employers are more impressed with a year "flipping burgers," to borrow the cliché, than "So, like, I just hung out with my friends and played WoW until I found something I felt like doing") while you look for something in your field.

I'd also like to see the statistics behind the "spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a degree in basket-weaving" meme, but none have been forthcoming.

One practical takeaway from your post that I'd pass along to every student: Learn to touch-type.  It's a rare job that doesn't involve a keyboard at some point.  Your may have the fastest texting thumbs in the Western hemisphere, but on a QWERTY board 85 w.p.m. will get you there faster.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More people my age finished college than their parents.  That's a fact.  Since people my age are the ones now whose kids attend college, my daughter being on that list, why the push for someone other than the parents to pay for it.  If so many more go to college and you claim that means they have the ability to pay for it, shouldn't what you say already be happening?
> 
> So you support a program designed to allow people make more money yet don't hold them accountable to pay it back if they don't succeed in doing the thing you say is necessary to prevent the inability to improve themselves financially.  So much for selling your idea of an investment.  Why should I invent in something that if it fails it's lost money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they supposed to pay it back trying to survive on a minimum wage job?  Have you tried that lately?
> And you know as well as I do that although "more" people have graduated from college than in your parents' day, it certainly isn't all that could have or should have or would have, if they could have afforded it.
> Good talk; I've said all my brain can summon on the subject at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they're just going to be working minimum wage anyway, why are they bothering to go to college?  Wasn't the whole point of a college degree to get a BETTER-than-minimum-wage job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it common in your experience for people to get their dream job right out of college?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between "not getting your dream job" and "spending tens of thousands on a degree so you can get the same job you could have had right out of high school."
> 
> If you graduate college and still can't move out of minimum wage, you did it wrong.  Period.  Hell, I did better than minimum wage at 20, just out of _secretarial school,_ with no college at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough, but situations vary based on location, market, and your field.  The advice used to be "Go into IT; they'll always need programmers"...until they didn't.  "There's a nursing shortage; they'll always need nurses."  Well, maybe, until that changes.
> 
> So unless you plan to live with your parents for years, you take whatever's available to earn some income and build your résumé (some employers are more impressed with a year "flipping burgers," to borrow the cliché, than "So, like, I just hung out with my friends and played WoW until I found something I felt like doing") while you look for something in your field.
> 
> I'd also like to see the statistics behind the "spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a degree in basket-weaving" meme, but none have been forthcoming.
> 
> One practical takeaway from your post that I'd pass along to every student: Learn to touch-type.  It's a rare job that doesn't involve a keyboard at some point.  Your may have the fastest texting thumbs in the Western hemisphere, but on a QWERTY board 85 w.p.m. will get you there faster.
Click to expand...


Yes, well, the advice SHOULD be - and it should be obvious to anyone intelligent enough to expect to get a degree - RESEARCH YOUR FIELD.  Do not just take someone's word for "they'll always need . . ."  Get your happy ass on the Internet and access the jobs data from that field.  There's certainly not a shortage of info about any job you can name.

Use your damned head, and then don't come whining to me with these fucking, "It's supposed to be good, and now there are no jobs" excuse bullshit.

And while we're at it, even if you can't find a job in your field, if you have a college degree that's worth a piss into a windstorm, you should NOT be working for minimum wage, whatever else happens.  Hell, my ex-husband has a degree in Journalism, and another in Creative Writing, for God's sake, and has parlayed that into I-don't-know HOW many jobs that have very little to do with being a reporter (which was originally his goal), culminating in a job as a _correctional officer, _of all things_.
_
I stand by what I said:  if you got a college degree and you're working for minimum wage, you did it wrong.  I don't even care which "it" you choose; it was wrong.  And college was clearly a waste of time and money in your case.

As for "degree in basket-weaving", this isn't actually a hard one.  Most universities have a College of Arts, and it is certainly possible to get a Fine Arts degree with a course emphasis on weaving and textiles, if that's your artistic focus.  How useful it is you may judge for yourself.  The "underwater" that's usually attached to that actually refers to the fact that many materials used in basket-weaving are woven while wet, sometimes even actually submerged in a shallow container of water, to keep them supple while they're worked.


----------



## Arianrhod

And of course between the time you declare a major and 3-4 years later when you graduate, the goalposts may have shifted.

As for the "basket-weaving" meme, I was referring to its overuse anytime the topic of college education comes up, as if that's all college kids are studying.  Just anecdotally, frat boys are far more interested in majoring in beer.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Arianrhod said:


> And of course between the time you declare a major and 3-4 years later when you graduate, the goalposts may have shifted.
> 
> As for the "basket-weaving" meme, I was referring to its overuse anytime the topic of college education comes up, as if that's all college kids are studying.  Just anecdotally, frat boys are far more interested in majoring in beer.



Well, if you want to do research that limited and shallow, that's certainly your choice.  Again, don't come crying to me about how you "have" to work as a bagboy at the local market afterward.

First of all, there are scads of sources that track such trends over time and provide projections for the future.  Second of all, if you pick a course and then don't bother to keep up on trends and projections while attending classes, you're a fucking idiot.  Third, none of this changes the fact that it's not an either-or situation:  EITHER you get the exact job you want, OR you flip burgers for jack shit.  If you have a college degree in anything even remotely useful, and you can't parlay it into a better job than you can get right out of high school, your time and money in college might as well have been flushed down the commode.

Most people use "underwater basket weaving" as a pejorative for a useless college major, probably because it largely IS useless.  However, people who say that don't mean they ACTUALLY think lots of college kids are ACTUALLY studying basket weaving of any sort, Captain Literal.  What they mean is that many college students are wasting their time in classes and degree programs that have little to no value in terms of future employment.  Which is true.


----------



## Arianrhod

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course between the time you declare a major and 3-4 years later when you graduate, the goalposts may have shifted.
> 
> As for the "basket-weaving" meme, I was referring to its overuse anytime the topic of college education comes up, as if that's all college kids are studying.  Just anecdotally, frat boys are far more interested in majoring in beer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you want to do research that limited and shallow, that's certainly your choice.  Again, don't come crying to me about how you "have" to work as a bagboy at the local market afterward.
Click to expand...


How "limited and shallow"?  Did I post anything so specific that you can make that assessment of all undergraduates?  Fascinating.



Cecilie1200 said:


> First of all, there are scads of sources that track such trends over time and provide projections for the future.  Second of all, if you pick a course and then don't bother to keep up on trends and projections while attending classes, you're a fucking idiot.



So how many times would you recommend changing majors?



Cecilie1200 said:


> Third, none of this changes the fact that it's not an either-or situation:  EITHER you get the exact job you want, OR you flip burgers for jack shit.



Nor did I say it was. 



Cecilie1200 said:


> If you have a college degree in anything even remotely useful, and you can't parlay it into a better job than you can get right out of high school, your time and money in college might as well have been flushed down the commode.



This of course presupposes a uniformity of job markets nationwide.  I'm sure your one-size-fits-all answer will be "Then move where the jobs are," amiright?


Cecilie1200 said:


> Most people use "underwater basket weaving" as a pejorative for a useless college major, probably because it largely IS useless.  However, people who say that don't mean they ACTUALLY think lots of college kids are ACTUALLY studying basket weaving of any sort.



Precisely.


----------



## baileyn45

Wrong  The Fed is part of the government.

Nonsense

"The Federal Reserve consists of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, with boards of Directors, under an umbrella direction of the 7 member Federal Reserve Board in Washington, with the power to determine major aspects of banking activity, such as setting interest rates, and the reserve and other operational requirements. There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size (they must subscribe to the shares with 3% of their capital plus surplus).  The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend.'.

Read the second sentence again,

"There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size (they must subscribe to the shares with 3% of their capital plus surplus)."

Try this
Who Owns The Federal Reserve?

"The federal government now backs this debt, of course it became good debt."

Do you have any idea how dumb that is? The fed is the last resort lender to the fed govt ( Now carries 12% of fed govt debt). So if the fed gets in trouble they will turn to the fed govt, who will turn to the fed for loans??????????????.

"No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them."

And you base this on what?

"Ignored the WSJ link? LOL! Guaranteed bonds trading above par means lots of people want to purchase them."

And you honestly believe that what is being purchased are the subprime MBS that went belly up at the beginning of this mess? Those "toxic assets will never see the light of day. They will reside on the fed balance sheet forever.

'Nonsense. The banks got stuck with their toxic assets."

If this were true the banks would be out of business. Those 'toxic assets" now reside at the fed.

"Adds $1.7 trillion in reserves to the system and lowers interest rates."

Lowers interest rates? To what? Negative numbers? The reason the fed bought this crap was because they could not lower interest rates below zero.

"Citigroup worked the mortgages out with the homeowners and they began performing (paying the mortgage) again or Citigroup foreclosed on the homes and sold them for a loss.

Now if Fannie or Freddie bought 10 basically identical mortgages and the homeowners defaulted, the buyer of the now guaranteed MBS wouldn't know, or care, because he'd get the interest and principal payments with no interruption or impairment.

If the Fed bought this second, guaranteed MBS, they aren't taking a toxic asset off of anyone's hands, because the MBS is a high quality, guaranteed, trading above par, bond."

I wish I lived in your world. The MBS at issue were wrapped up in derivatives that no one on the planet has yet to unravel. From the banks perspective they are now gone, handed off to the fed. Again from what you are saying there was never a problem. All these "toxic assets" were actually good debt. So why has the fed govt pumped $430bil into the big banks and the fed purchased $1.7tr in MBS from the big banks? Hell all was well. What was the problem?

"Yes, when someone with unlimited resources decides to guarantee something, it's no longer toxic."

Unlimited resources? This would be the fed govt? The fed govt now$18tr in debt. 12% of which is held by the fed?

"No, all the guaranteed debt is now good debt, whether the Fed bought it or you did."

I challenge you to find any source that states that the fed reserve debt is guaranteed by the fed govt. 

And if it was, the fed govt would have to turn to the fed to have the fed purchase more treasury notes which of course would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to spend more to bail out the fed which would require the fed to buy more fed govt treasuries so the fed govt could continue to bail out the fed which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more of the fed debt by borrowing more from the fed which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more fed debt by having the fed purchase more treasuries which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to have the fed buy more securities which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more of the feds debt by having the fed buy more securities...

What could go wrong?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

baileyn45 said:


> Wrong  The Fed is part of the government.
> 
> Nonsense
> 
> "The Federal Reserve consists of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, with boards of Directors, under an umbrella direction of the 7 member Federal Reserve Board in Washington, with the power to determine major aspects of banking activity, such as setting interest rates, and the reserve and other operational requirements. There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size (they must subscribe to the shares with 3% of their capital plus surplus).  The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend.'.
> 
> Read the second sentence again,
> 
> "There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size (they must subscribe to the shares with 3% of their capital plus surplus)."
> 
> Try this
> Who Owns The Federal Reserve?
> 
> "The federal government now backs this debt, of course it became good debt."
> 
> Do you have any idea how dumb that is? The fed is the last resort lender to the fed govt ( Now carries 12% of fed govt debt). So if the fed gets in trouble they will turn to the fed govt, who will turn to the fed for loans??????????????.
> 
> "No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them."
> 
> And you base this on what?
> 
> "Ignored the WSJ link? LOL! Guaranteed bonds trading above par means lots of people want to purchase them."
> 
> And you honestly believe that what is being purchased are the subprime MBS that went belly up at the beginning of this mess? Those "toxic assets will never see the light of day. They will reside on the fed balance sheet forever.
> 
> 'Nonsense. The banks got stuck with their toxic assets."
> 
> If this were true the banks would be out of business. Those 'toxic assets" now reside at the fed.
> 
> "Adds $1.7 trillion in reserves to the system and lowers interest rates."
> 
> Lowers interest rates? To what? Negative numbers? The reason the fed bought this crap was because they could not lower interest rates below zero.
> 
> "Citigroup worked the mortgages out with the homeowners and they began performing (paying the mortgage) again or Citigroup foreclosed on the homes and sold them for a loss.
> 
> Now if Fannie or Freddie bought 10 basically identical mortgages and the homeowners defaulted, the buyer of the now guaranteed MBS wouldn't know, or care, because he'd get the interest and principal payments with no interruption or impairment.
> 
> If the Fed bought this second, guaranteed MBS, they aren't taking a toxic asset off of anyone's hands, because the MBS is a high quality, guaranteed, trading above par, bond."
> 
> I wish I lived in your world. The MBS at issue were wrapped up in derivatives that no one on the planet has yet to unravel. From the banks perspective they are now gone, handed off to the fed. Again from what you are saying there was never a problem. All these "toxic assets" were actually good debt. So why has the fed govt pumped $430bil into the big banks and the fed purchased $1.7tr in MBS from the big banks? Hell all was well. What was the problem?
> 
> "Yes, when someone with unlimited resources decides to guarantee something, it's no longer toxic."
> 
> Unlimited resources? This would be the fed govt? The fed govt now$18tr in debt. 12% of which is held by the fed?
> 
> "No, all the guaranteed debt is now good debt, whether the Fed bought it or you did."
> 
> I challenge you to find any source that states that the fed reserve debt is guaranteed by the fed govt.
> 
> And if it was, the fed govt would have to turn to the fed to have the fed purchase more treasury notes which of course would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to spend more to bail out the fed which would require the fed to buy more fed govt treasuries so the fed govt could continue to bail out the fed which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more of the fed debt by borrowing more from the fed which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more fed debt by having the fed purchase more treasuries which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to have the fed buy more securities which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more of the feds debt by having the fed buy more securities...
> 
> What could go wrong?



*The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend.'.*

Last year the "private owners" received $1.7 billion in dividends, the Treasury about $100 billion.

"The federal government now backs this debt, of course it became good debt."

*Do you have any idea how dumb that is?
*
Yeah, probably not a good idea, but when the US government guarantees a debt, that makes it solid.
*
The fed is the last resort lender to the fed govt
*
Lender of last resort to the banking system, not to the Federal government.

*So if the fed gets in trouble*

How in the world would the Fed get in trouble? Spell it out.

"No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them."

*And you base this on what?
*
It was in all the papers. Here.

_A key component of the conservatorships is the commitment of the U.S. Department of the Treasury to provide financial support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to enable them to continue to provide liquidity and stability to the mortgage market. _

_The Treasury Department has provided $189.5 billion in support, which includes an initial placement of $1 billion in both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the time of the conservatorships and an additional cumulative $187.5 billion investment from the Treasury Department_

History of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Conservatorships                                 | Federal Housing Finance Agency

*And you honestly believe that what is being purchased are the subprime MBS that went belly up at the beginning of this mess?
*
No. The Fed did not buy subprime MBS. The Fed bought guaranteed MBS.

*Those "toxic assets will never see the light of day. They will reside on the fed balance sheet forever.
*
The toxic assets that they never bought are not on their balance sheet. Not now, not ever, never.

*I wish I lived in your world.
*
Me too, then I wouldn't have to correct all your errors.

*Again from what you are saying there was never a problem.
*
There was a huge problem. Trillions in loans to bad risks, thanks in part to moronic government pressure on banks to get poor people to buy homes.

*All these "toxic assets" were actually good debt.*

No. Toxic assets are toxic assets. Assets that were guaranteed by the government are not toxic assets.

*Unlimited resources? This would be the fed govt?
*
For all intents and purposes, yes.

*I challenge you to find any source that states that the fed reserve debt is guaranteed by the fed govt.
*
They own US Treasuries. Are they guaranteed?
They own Fannie and Freddie MBS. Fannie and Freddie are now in government conservatorship.
I think that means they are guaranteed. If you can show they are not, I'll alter my claim.

*And if it was, the fed govt would have to turn to the fed to have the fed purchase more treasury notes which of course would weaken the feds balance sheet
*
Ummmm......why would more Treasury Notes weaken the Fed's balance sheet?
It sounds like you don't understand accounting either.


----------



## baileyn45

*"The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend.'.*
Last year the "private owners" received $1.7 billion in dividends, the Treasury about $100 billion."

Irrelevant to the question at hand.

*"Do you have any idea how dumb that is?*
Yeah, probably not a good idea, but when the US jovernment guarantees a debt, that makes it solid."

Not all MBS were originated at Fannie and Freddie. The majority were "private label" and carry the same risk as if they were held by any other private bank..
*
"The fed is the last resort lender to the fed govt*
Lender of last resort to the banking system, not to the Federal government."

Unfortunately the fed has become the last lender to the govt and is now the second largest holder of us securities. While technically not "loans" the fed is propping the govt up by buying securities which otherwise would flood the market requiring larger promised returns aka interest payments..

*"So if the fed gets in trouble*
How in the world would the Fed get in trouble? Spell it out."

The same way any other private bank gets in trouble. The same way the other big banks got in trouble, by purchasing bonds and securities that are in actuality worth pennies on the dollar as compared to the purchase
price.

"No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them."
*And you base this on what?"*
It was in all the papers. Here.
_A key component ... reasury Department_

$187bil? A drop in the bucket. Do you realize that in QE3 alone the fed purchased nearly 1/2 trillion in MBS/FAD?
Purchases from freddiie and fanne are not labeled MBS, but are listed as Federal Agency Debt.

*"And you honestly believe that what is being purchased are the subprime MBS that went belly up at the beginning of this mess?*
No. The Fed did not buy subprime MBS. The Fed bought guaranteed MBS".

Sorry that's just not true. If they were guaranteed they would have been sold in the private sector. Private label MBS are guaranteed by no one.
*
"Those "toxic assets will never see the light of day. They will reside on the fed balance sheet forever.*
The toxic assets that they never bought are not on their balance sheet. Not now, not ever, never."

Are there will always be there until the fed "writes them off".

"Suppose that the Federal Reserve loses $100B buying junky mortgage bonds.  Normally, the Federal Reserve turns over any surplus “profit” to the Federal Government.  Via the “negative liabilities” trick, the Federal Reserve deducts any bailout losses from the Federal Reserve’s payments to the Federal government."

*"Again from what you are saying there was never a problem.*
There was a huge problem. Trillions in loans to bad risks, thanks in part to moronic government pressure on banks to get poor people to buy homes."

Now that we can agree on. Those trillions were not absorbed by the banks. they were purchased by the fed.

*"All these "toxic assets" were actually good debt.*
No. Toxic assets are toxic assets. Assets that were guaranteed by the government are not toxic assets."

Unfortunately, private label MBS are guaranteed by no one. On the order of 1/4 tr under QE3 alone.

*"Unlimited resources? This would be the fed govt?*
For all intents and purposes, yes."

As long as the rest of the world has faith in the us borrowing and printing forever. A rather risky assumption at best.

*I challenge you to find any source that states that the fed reserve debt is guaranteed by the fed govt.
*
"They own US Treasuries. Are they guaranteed?"

Yes, again as long as the rest of the world has faith in our ability to borrow and print.

"They own Fannie and Freddie MBS. Fannie and Freddie are now in government conservatorship.
I think that means they are guaranteed. If you can show they are not, I'll alter my claim."

Again fannie and freddie technically aren't MBS they are FAD.The MBS are private label debt and are guaranteed by no one. Roughly half the purchases under QE3 were MBS not FAD. !/4 trillion on QE3 alone.

*"And if it was, the fed govt would have to turn to the fed to have the fed purchase more treasury notes which of course would weaken the feds balance sheet*
Ummmm......why would more Treasury Notes weaken the Fed's balance sheet?
It sounds like you don't understand accounting either."

And you don't seem to understand the inflationary and confidence issues raised by a govt that continually turns to it's central bank to create "money" out of thin air in order to purchase fed treasuries to keep the govt operating. The idea that this can continue forever is crazy and dangerous. Sooner or later it's going to come back to bite us in the butt.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

baileyn45 said:


> *"The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend.'.*
> Last year the "private owners" received $1.7 billion in dividends, the Treasury about $100 billion."
> 
> Irrelevant to the question at hand.
> 
> *"Do you have any idea how dumb that is?*
> Yeah, probably not a good idea, but when the US jovernment guarantees a debt, that makes it solid."
> 
> Not all MBS were originated at Fannie and Freddie. The majority were "private label" and carry the same risk as if they were held by any other private bank..
> *
> "The fed is the last resort lender to the fed govt*
> Lender of last resort to the banking system, not to the Federal government."
> 
> Unfortunately the fed has become the last lender to the govt and is now the second largest holder of us securities. While technically not "loans" the fed is propping the govt up by buying securities which otherwise would flood the market requiring larger promised returns aka interest payments..
> 
> *"So if the fed gets in trouble*
> How in the world would the Fed get in trouble? Spell it out."
> 
> The same way any other private bank gets in trouble. The same way the other big banks got in trouble, by purchasing bonds and securities that are in actuality worth pennies on the dollar as compared to the purchase
> price.
> 
> "No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them."
> *And you base this on what?"*
> It was in all the papers. Here.
> _A key component ... reasury Department_
> 
> $187bil? A drop in the bucket. Do you realize that in QE3 alone the fed purchased nearly 1/2 trillion in MBS/FAD?
> Purchases from freddiie and fanne are not labeled MBS, but are listed as Federal Agency Debt.
> 
> *"And you honestly believe that what is being purchased are the subprime MBS that went belly up at the beginning of this mess?*
> No. The Fed did not buy subprime MBS. The Fed bought guaranteed MBS".
> 
> Sorry that's just not true. If they were guaranteed they would have been sold in the private sector. Private label MBS are guaranteed by no one.
> *
> "Those "toxic assets will never see the light of day. They will reside on the fed balance sheet forever.*
> The toxic assets that they never bought are not on their balance sheet. Not now, not ever, never."
> 
> Are there will always be there until the fed "writes them off".
> 
> "Suppose that the Federal Reserve loses $100B buying junky mortgage bonds.  Normally, the Federal Reserve turns over any surplus “profit” to the Federal Government.  Via the “negative liabilities” trick, the Federal Reserve deducts any bailout losses from the Federal Reserve’s payments to the Federal government."
> 
> *"Again from what you are saying there was never a problem.*
> There was a huge problem. Trillions in loans to bad risks, thanks in part to moronic government pressure on banks to get poor people to buy homes."
> 
> Now that we can agree on. Those trillions were not absorbed by the banks. they were purchased by the fed.
> 
> *"All these "toxic assets" were actually good debt.*
> No. Toxic assets are toxic assets. Assets that were guaranteed by the government are not toxic assets."
> 
> Unfortunately, private label MBS are guaranteed by no one. On the order of 1/4 tr under QE3 alone.
> 
> *"Unlimited resources? This would be the fed govt?*
> For all intents and purposes, yes."
> 
> As long as the rest of the world has faith in the us borrowing and printing forever. A rather risky assumption at best.
> 
> *I challenge you to find any source that states that the fed reserve debt is guaranteed by the fed govt.
> *
> "They own US Treasuries. Are they guaranteed?"
> 
> Yes, again as long as the rest of the world has faith in our ability to borrow and print.
> 
> "They own Fannie and Freddie MBS. Fannie and Freddie are now in government conservatorship.
> I think that means they are guaranteed. If you can show they are not, I'll alter my claim."
> 
> Again fannie and freddie technically aren't MBS they are FAD.The MBS are private label debt and are guaranteed by no one. Roughly half the purchases under QE3 were MBS not FAD. !/4 trillion on QE3 alone.
> 
> *"And if it was, the fed govt would have to turn to the fed to have the fed purchase more treasury notes which of course would weaken the feds balance sheet*
> Ummmm......why would more Treasury Notes weaken the Fed's balance sheet?
> It sounds like you don't understand accounting either."
> 
> And you don't seem to understand the inflationary and confidence issues raised by a govt that continually turns to it's central bank to create "money" out of thin air in order to purchase fed treasuries to keep the govt operating. The idea that this can continue forever is crazy and dangerous. Sooner or later it's going to come back to bite us in the butt.


*
Irrelevant to the question at hand.*

If the US Treasury gets 60 times what the "private owners" get, that is extremely relevant.

*Not all MBS were originated at Fannie and Freddie. The majority were "private label" and carry the same risk as if they were held by any other private bank..*


The Treasury only guaranteed Fannie and Freddie. The Fed only bought Fannie and Freddie.
The private label ones, including lots of toxic ones during the crisis, weren't part of QE.

*While technically not "loans" the fed is propping the govt up by buying securities which otherwise would flood the market requiring larger promised returns aka interest payments..
*
The Fed ended QE3 15 months ago. Did Treasury rates skyrocket? Why not?

How in the world would the Fed get in trouble? Spell it out."

*The same way any other private bank gets in trouble.
*
But the Fed isn't a private bank.

*The same way the other big banks got in trouble, by purchasing bonds and securities that are in actuality worth pennies on the dollar as compared to the purchase price.*

They only bought guaranteed bonds. They have hundreds of billions in capital gains on their bond portfolio. Their bonds earn 2%-4% and their financing costs are about 0.4%. They earned over $100 billion last year.
How in the world would the Fed get in trouble?

*$187bil? A drop in the bucket. Do you realize that in QE3 alone the fed purchased nearly 1/2 trillion in MBS/FAD?*

You know that Fannie and Freddie are no longer losing money?
*
Purchases from freddiie and fanne are not labeled MBS, but are listed as Federal Agency Debt.
*
They own $33 billion in agency debt, $1.75 trillion in MBS.
*
Sorry that's just not true. If they were guaranteed they would have been sold in the private sector.
*
They were guaranteed and the Fed bought them from the private sector.

*Are there will always be there until the fed "writes them off".*

Why would the Fed write off their high grade bonds?

*Those trillions were not absorbed by the banks. they were purchased by the fed.
*
Wrong. The Fed bought no private label MBS.

*Unfortunately, private label MBS are guaranteed by no one
*
You got one right!
*
On the order of 1/4 tr under QE3 alone.*

And you're wrong. Again.

*Via the “negative liabilities” trick, the Federal Reserve deducts any bailout losses from the Federal Reserve’s payments to the Federal government."*

Yes, it's possible, in the future, that they might have to reduce their remittance to the Treasury. And?

*As long as the rest of the world has faith in the us borrowing and printing forever. A rather risky assumption at best.*

Yeah, an AA+ rating is risky at best. LOL! You're funny.

*And you don't seem to understand the inflationary and confidence issues raised by a govt that continually turns to it's central bank to create "money" out of thin air in order to purchase fed treasuries
*
The Fed hasn't expanded their balance sheet since October 2014. Where is the inflation?
If there was a loss of confidence, where is the spike in Treasury rates?

*The idea that this can continue forever is crazy*

It ended. In October 2014.


----------

