Everyone making less then 25,000 per year

[PoliticalChic]

Far from true.


Almost every university is populated by the same sort.

Every poll of professors shows the same bias.

The result is a body of graduates with knowledge, but without wisdom.

You don't want people to have an education, because educated people are, by and large, liberal, and not just in the US. It's not because education has a liberal bias, it's because the history of the world is one of overcoming conservatives of the era, and pushing forward new ideas.

History is always the victory of the new over the old. Whether that's a good thing, depends on the circumstances.

The Founding Fathers were liberals because they refused to accept the status quo, and wanted freedom. Freedom is a liberal concept.

Are you an example of what you call 'educated'?
If so....you make my point about Liberal...you are clearly a dunce.


Here, let's prove it together.

The Founding Fathers were believers in these principles....
Individualism
Free Markets
Limited constitutional government

They were classical liberals, what would be called conservatives today.


Communist John Dewey prevailed on the Socialist Party to change it's name to Liberal.


. "Before WW II, the same folks who championed Progressivism, viewed fascism as a noble economic agenda, and praised Mussolini. It was the horrors of the Holocaust that required both the rapid retreat from associations with the term fascism, and the rebranding by John Dewey of progressivism as liberalism.

W.E.B.DuBois suggested that National Socialism seemed an excellent model for economic organization."
http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bu_supp/supp5/supp5_099.pdf



So...can we agree...you're a fool?

I don't want to see a conservative post anything about a "free" market until they understand what that market is suppose to be free of. But hey, since we are talking about the founders--tell me about the Boston Tea Party.

Why?

Because nobody knows what the hell a free market is. Damn conservatives, "if only we had a free market", yet not a single one of them knows what that market is suppose to be free from. And hell, if you tell them the answer, they don't even know what the hell it means.

But what the hay, I give you a hint. The Citizens United case legalized the most common form of activity that a free market is suppose to be free from.

And I mention the Boston Tea Party because it was a revolt against the very same activity that a free market is suppose to be free from. And no, it's not taxes. And funny thing, the taxes that were due on that tea they dumped in the harbor--they got paid. Franklin made sure of it.

The moral, conservative don't know jack shit about Economics or American History.

Clean up you language. It tells the story of your education.

The free market is in juxtaposition to this:

"The Obama administration has put forth 25 so-called “midnight” regulations, which will cost the economy $44.1 billion, according to a report from the American Action Forum.

Midnight regulations are rules that are published after Election Day and before the next president is inaugurated in January 2017. Earlier this year, the administration estimated that there would be $5.2 billion in regulatory costs incurred during that time.

The $44.1 billion in regulatory costs have overshot that estimate by more than eight times.

The administration’s final regulatory agenda includes $75.3 billion in costs, which includes the cost of the midnight regulations, but is added to the $150 billion in regulatory costs the administration has produced already this year."
Obama Administration’s Midnight Regulations to Total $44 Billion

 

[initforme]

Facts are facts. Either get a college degree nowadays or give up the thought of owning a home. Without that degree life isn't going to be all that enjoyable.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

So you think humans that work but can't afford to feed their goddamn families are animals? Yet, you call yourself a christian? You can burn in hell you nasty piece of shit. Fuck you.

Simpleton.

Don't have a family that you can't support.

So you're in favour of legalized abortion?

Never have been against abortion.

Have at it.

Do as you wish with your body.

 

[Winston]

You don't want people to have an education, because educated people are, by and large, liberal, and not just in the US. It's not because education has a liberal bias, it's because the history of the world is one of overcoming conservatives of the era, and pushing forward new ideas.

History is always the victory of the new over the old. Whether that's a good thing, depends on the circumstances.

The Founding Fathers were liberals because they refused to accept the status quo, and wanted freedom. Freedom is a liberal concept.

Are you an example of what you call 'educated'?
If so....you make my point about Liberal...you are clearly a dunce.


Here, let's prove it together.

The Founding Fathers were believers in these principles....
Individualism
Free Markets
Limited constitutional government

They were classical liberals, what would be called conservatives today.


Communist John Dewey prevailed on the Socialist Party to change it's name to Liberal.


. "Before WW II, the same folks who championed Progressivism, viewed fascism as a noble economic agenda, and praised Mussolini. It was the horrors of the Holocaust that required both the rapid retreat from associations with the term fascism, and the rebranding by John Dewey of progressivism as liberalism.

W.E.B.DuBois suggested that National Socialism seemed an excellent model for economic organization."
http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bu_supp/supp5/supp5_099.pdf



So...can we agree...you're a fool?

I don't want to see a conservative post anything about a "free" market until they understand what that market is suppose to be free of. But hey, since we are talking about the founders--tell me about the Boston Tea Party.

Why?

Because nobody knows what the hell a free market is. Damn conservatives, "if only we had a free market", yet not a single one of them knows what that market is suppose to be free from. And hell, if you tell them the answer, they don't even know what the hell it means.

But what the hay, I give you a hint. The Citizens United case legalized the most common form of activity that a free market is suppose to be free from.

And I mention the Boston Tea Party because it was a revolt against the very same activity that a free market is suppose to be free from. And no, it's not taxes. And funny thing, the taxes that were due on that tea they dumped in the harbor--they got paid. Franklin made sure of it.

The moral, conservative don't know jack shit about Economics or American History.

Clean up you language. It tells the story of your education.

The free market is in juxtaposition to this:

"The Obama administration has put forth 25 so-called “midnight” regulations, which will cost the economy $44.1 billion, according to a report from the American Action Forum.

Midnight regulations are rules that are published after Election Day and before the next president is inaugurated in January 2017. Earlier this year, the administration estimated that there would be $5.2 billion in regulatory costs incurred during that time.

The $44.1 billion in regulatory costs have overshot that estimate by more than eight times.

The administration’s final regulatory agenda includes $75.3 billion in costs, which includes the cost of the midnight regulations, but is added to the $150 billion in regulatory costs the administration has produced already this year."
Obama Administration’s Midnight Regulations to Total $44 Billion

Like I said, you don't know what a free market is and you have no understanding of the concept of economic rent. In regards to those regulations, we would have to examine each one independently. The most costly one per your study involves the improvement of protections for human subjects in clinical and biospecimen research. In other words, protections to prevent the externalization of costs by medical researchers. To the extent those costs are externalized, they are RENT SEEKING, and thereby perfectly acceptable for regulating in a free market.

But now we done run into another problem. You don't know what externalizing cost means.

 

[Moonglow]

Everyone making less then 25,000 per year should get $300 per month in food stamps and be allowed to take skill based classes at their local community college backed by the tax payers. Skill based is computer, business, or any classes that help them get a better job to boost their income upwards.

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

Er.... why? Does it help someone to give them free money? No, not really. It does help them to have them getting jobs.

What would help them is A) an education system which works for them to get a job when they're an adult, giving them the skills they need while they are at school and B) an education system which is aimed at producing workers aimed at specific jobs, like high tech jobs so that everyone benefits.

yes, our educational system needs a lot of work. We need to return to teaching kids how to make a living instead of teaching political correctness and social justice. Teach them to weld and work on cars instead of how to make protest signs and shit on police cars.

The advent of vo-tech is most useful in the education system.....

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Everyone making less then 25,000 per year should get $300 per month in food stamps and be allowed to take skill based classes at their local community college backed by the tax payers. Skill based is computer, business, or any classes that help them get a better job to boost their income upwards.

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

and repubs say "LET THEM DIE!"

They don't have to die.

They just need to actively participate in their upward mobility.

I'm not a Republican.

I'll assist them in the most basic needs for a limited time.

Never say die. Suffer for their stupidity... yes Get off of your ass and work like everyone else.

Carrot and Stick. Offer the education paid for and let them know you got 5 years to accomplish it bc everyone that is able bodied in some way are being kicked off welfare.

Why do we need to pay for anything? Just make the time limit for welfare 5 years and they have that long to do something. Anything. Get off your ass and make something fucking happen. I'm sure some will just sit there for 4 1/2 of the five years but what do you want us to do about it?

 

[WillReadmore]

My youngest son asked me about entering the work world at eighteen with no college education or join the.military, etc. I would have none of it. And he has thanked me since. He didn't have to start out on the very bottom. I ensured college was his choice.

YOU insured college for him just as I did for MY children. That's how it should be done not the freebie mindset of Liberal that think you and I that aren't the parents of other kids are more responsible for funding their education than the parents of those kids are.

Reserving education for those whose parents can pay is just plain stupid.

When our economy was based on agriculture, we provided 8th grade.

When we moved to manufacturing, corporations demonstrated that 8th grade was not enough. So, we provided high school - to everyone. In fact, we made high school attendance a requirement.

Now, we're moving to high tech, information, innovation, etc. Not even manufacturing is satisfied with high school anymore. We're still going to have a lot of jobs where high school is sufficient to get a start, but our competitiveness as a nation is depending more and more on college.

Leaving a huge percentage of our kids behind is just plain not acceptable.

Expecting me to do for another person's kids when their own parents won't do it is unacceptable.

I'm not leaving behind the ones for which I'm responsible. I provided their education through college. As for those that aren't my kids, I can't leave someone behind for which no responsibility resides for me to take care of them. If someone loses their house because they don't pay the mortgage, it's not my responsibility to do so. I didn't take out that mortgage just like I didn't have their kids. For me to be responsible for someone else's kids, the only way that happens is if I got the pussy that kid came out of.

Well, first of all, some of those parents simply can't.

More importantly, America needs our kids to be educated - regardless of what their parents do or don't do.

The majority of successful corporations are started by college graduates. And, our universities do research powered by students where the results expand existing corporations and create new corporations. Universities create high paying jobs.

Also, the median annual income of a graduate is about $20K higher than that of someone with high school right now, and the median income for a high school graduate is DECREASING while the median income of graduates is increasing.

So, we RECEIVE income tax on those higher salaries while we end up PAYING support for many who are living on the lower earnings of those with high school only.


The point here is that this is for us. This is for America's competitiveness. This is NOT some sort of gift to parents who can't pay. It's how America wins.

 

[Dragonlady]

Expecting me to do for another person's kids when their own parents won't do it is unacceptable.

I'm not leaving behind the ones for which I'm responsible. I provided their education through college. As for those that aren't my kids, I can't leave someone behind for which no responsibility resides for me to take care of them. If someone loses their house because they don't pay the mortgage, it's not my responsibility to do so. I didn't take out that mortgage just like I didn't have their kids. For me to be responsible for someone else's kids, the only way that happens is if I got the pussy that kid came out of.

We're expecting you to do this for YOUR COUNTRY. For YOUR ECONOMY, and for the FUTURE FOR YOUR CHILDREN.

The US needs educated workers. Period.

All I ever hear from conservatives is "me, me, me". Not one of you says "What would be best for my country?", or "What would help my country to be more successful". It's all about YOU.

 

[WillReadmore]

Expecting me to do for another person's kids when their own parents won't do it is unacceptable.

I'm not leaving behind the ones for which I'm responsible. I provided their education through college. As for those that aren't my kids, I can't leave someone behind for which no responsibility resides for me to take care of them. If someone loses their house because they don't pay the mortgage, it's not my responsibility to do so. I didn't take out that mortgage just like I didn't have their kids. For me to be responsible for someone else's kids, the only way that happens is if I got the pussy that kid came out of.

We're expecting you to do this for YOUR COUNTRY. For YOUR ECONOMY, and for the FUTURE FOR YOUR CHILDREN.

The US needs educated workers. Period.

All I ever hear from conservatives is "me, me, me". Not one of you says "What would be best for my country?", or "What would help my country to be more successful". It's all about YOU.

That's all we're getting from Trump, too, by the way.

He's ruling based on what he thinks would be best for white billionaires like himself. Period.

The fact that he has time and inclination to tweet personal attacks is telling.

 

[Flopper]

Everyone making less then 25,000 per year should get $300 per month in food stamps and be allowed to take skill based classes at their local community college backed by the tax payers. Skill based is computer, business, or any classes that help them get a better job to boost their income upwards.

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

and repubs say "LET THEM DIE!"

They don't have to die.

They just need to actively participate in their upward mobility.

I'm not a Republican.

I'll assist them in the most basic needs for a limited time.

Never say die. Suffer for their stupidity... yes Get off of your ass and work like everyone else.

Carrot and Stick. Offer the education paid for and let them know you got 5 years to accomplish it bc everyone that is able bodied in some way are being kicked off welfare.

Why do we need to pay for anything? Just make the time limit for welfare 5 years and they have that long to do something. Anything. Get off your ass and make something fucking happen. I'm sure some will just sit there for 4 1/2 of the five years but what do you want us to do about it?

The time limit already is 5 years (TANF) Most people are off within 2.5 years. However, the problem is what do you do with the mother and 3 kids or grandmother with the kids of her drug addicted daughter or the next door neighbor who has temporary custody of the kids that has no means of support after 5 years? They will just show up at DHS with the kids and say I can't feed them and can't pay the rent anymore. The kids would go into a protective custody, siting around for a few weeks then go from one foster home to another until they finally run away and eventually end up in jail or some other government facility. The cost to society is a lot less leaving the kids with Mom or their guardian and paying the welfare. The fact is getting tough with families on welfare just does not work because they don't respond like you might think.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, it's just Obama's administration that did this then? Not Congress? Not state govts? Not previous administrations, just Obama?

I don't believe you.

The 2008 recession was BAD for small businesses. As you can see from 2008 onwards the trend was poor. Things were moving up from 2014 onward. This doesn't have much to do with Obama, it has a lot to do with Bush and Congress who allowed massive military spending, allowed the housing market to go crazy, etc etc.

Looking here it seems to be a general downturn. This isn't Obama, this is everyone in politics. Reagan had an initial rise in job creation within small businesses, but it had dropped down by the end of his time in office, the same with Bush snr. and Bush W. What does this suggest? It suggests they put in policies that work in the short term and not in the long term, they do the populist things and it goes downhill again. The same can also be said of Carter. This isn't taking into account things that were going on at this time, like a boom for Bush W which could have increased jobs without any need for any legislation or presidential actions.

To A) put the blame on Obama only is ridiculous and B) to do so without backing anything up is even more ridiculous.

I recently read an article (I can't recall where), which suggested that Obama has vision which stretched long into the future, and sets his policies for the long term, whereas most people can only see the short term prospects. Bush was a short term guy for sure. Reagan, I think was a long term guy too, but when he saw the damage his policies did to the economy, he had the good sense to reverse some of them - like the tax cuts.

By and large, I think Republicans in office are incapable of long term vision. Especially Tea Party types.

The Tea Party types seem to be in it to make themselves feel good about themselves. They want to have simple policies that they can understand, and then shout out that complex policies are for idiots, thereby making themselves the intelligent ones.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, it's just Obama's administration that did this then? Not Congress? Not state govts? Not previous administrations, just Obama?

I don't believe you.

The 2008 recession was BAD for small businesses. As you can see from 2008 onwards the trend was poor. Things were moving up from 2014 onward. This doesn't have much to do with Obama, it has a lot to do with Bush and Congress who allowed massive military spending, allowed the housing market to go crazy, etc etc.

Looking here it seems to be a general downturn. This isn't Obama, this is everyone in politics. Reagan had an initial rise in job creation within small businesses, but it had dropped down by the end of his time in office, the same with Bush snr. and Bush W. What does this suggest? It suggests they put in policies that work in the short term and not in the long term, they do the populist things and it goes downhill again. The same can also be said of Carter. This isn't taking into account things that were going on at this time, like a boom for Bush W which could have increased jobs without any need for any legislation or presidential actions.

To A) put the blame on Obama only is ridiculous and B) to do so without backing anything up is even more ridiculous.

I recently read an article (I can't recall where), which suggested that Obama has vision which stretched long into the future, and sets his policies for the long term, whereas most people can only see the short term prospects. Bush was a short term guy for sure. Reagan, I think was a long term guy too, but when he saw the damage his policies did to the economy, he had the good sense to reverse some of them - like the tax cuts.

By and large, I think Republicans in office are incapable of long term vision. Especially Tea Party types.

I agree, some presidents see their presidency as a stepping stone toward a better America and a better world that may not happen until well after they have left office. Other presidents are strictly pragmatist with immediate goals who have virtually no interest in what happens after they leave office. Trump seems to me to be the latter and Obama the former.

Trump seems to be a guy who thinks that govt is the same as business. He thinks he can bully others into doing what he wants because he thinks money is the only factor in the minds of other people. However he needs to listen, and he's not listening, he's just coming out with verbal diarrhea too much which is going to impact the future. So, while he is looking to the future in the same way he would for his businesses, this isn't necessarily going to benefit the long term.

I disagree about Obama. Yes, he's the typical politician looking for the political short term fix sometimes, but his policy on Muslims appears to be long term, but so was Bush's. Bush wanted a common enemy for the Republican party to fight in the long term and he got that. Obama wanted to change that and struggled to succeed because once you've thrown the shit, it's a little hard to make it unhappen.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh, it's just Obama's administration that did this then? Not Congress? Not state govts? Not previous administrations, just Obama?

I don't believe you.

The 2008 recession was BAD for small businesses. As you can see from 2008 onwards the trend was poor. Things were moving up from 2014 onward. This doesn't have much to do with Obama, it has a lot to do with Bush and Congress who allowed massive military spending, allowed the housing market to go crazy, etc etc.

Looking here it seems to be a general downturn. This isn't Obama, this is everyone in politics. Reagan had an initial rise in job creation within small businesses, but it had dropped down by the end of his time in office, the same with Bush snr. and Bush W. What does this suggest? It suggests they put in policies that work in the short term and not in the long term, they do the populist things and it goes downhill again. The same can also be said of Carter. This isn't taking into account things that were going on at this time, like a boom for Bush W which could have increased jobs without any need for any legislation or presidential actions.

To A) put the blame on Obama only is ridiculous and B) to do so without backing anything up is even more ridiculous.

I recently read an article (I can't recall where), which suggested that Obama has vision which stretched long into the future, and sets his policies for the long term, whereas most people can only see the short term prospects. Bush was a short term guy for sure. Reagan, I think was a long term guy too, but when he saw the damage his policies did to the economy, he had the good sense to reverse some of them - like the tax cuts.

By and large, I think Republicans in office are incapable of long term vision. Especially Tea Party types.

I agree, some presidents see their presidency as a stepping stone toward a better America and a better world that may not happen until well after they have left office. Other presidents are strictly pragmatist with immediate goals who have virtually no interest in what happens after they leave office. Trump seems to me to be the latter and Obama the former.

Trump seems to be a guy who thinks that govt is the same as business. He thinks he can bully others into doing what he wants because he thinks money is the only factor in the minds of other people. However he needs to listen, and he's not listening, he's just coming out with verbal diarrhea too much which is going to impact the future. So, while he is looking to the future in the same way he would for his businesses, this isn't necessarily going to benefit the long term.

I disagree about Obama. Yes, he's the typical politician looking for the political short term fix sometimes, but his policy on Muslims appears to be long term, but so was Bush's. Bush wanted a common enemy for the Republican party to fight in the long term and he got that. Obama wanted to change that and struggled to succeed because once you've thrown the shit, it's a little hard to make it unhappen.

Wow, you are like coyote..

I got news for you politicians is no different then business men.. They are human after all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you think humans that work but can't afford to feed their goddamn families are animals? Yet, you call yourself a christian? You can burn in hell you nasty piece of shit. Fuck you.

That's not what is being said.

Firstly, people should have families when they are in a position to do so.

Secondly if kids need food then food stamps aren't the answer. Having free meals at school is a much better choice as kids should then be getting nutritious food instead of the crap that many get.

Thirdly, people need to be encouraged to work. Rewarding people for not working is not the way forwards.

Children are in school only 180 days a year. So they should just go hungry the other 185 days?

Whether schools serve nutritious food depends on the school. They're required to offer a healthy meal or some facsimile thereof. However, since most school lunch programs attempt to operate at a profit and are criticized for serving food the kids won't eat, they provide kids with what they really want, sugar filled drinks, hot dogs, french frys, and snacks filled with empty calories. In my experience parents, rich or poor attempt to provide healthy meals than schools.

Well, if you give parents food stamps, does this mean they're going to spend them on the kids?
If you give kids food 180 days of the year, doesn't that free up money for the parents to spend on food the other 185 days?

Whichever way you look at it, if kids have bad parents then they're going to suffer. But with bad parents and food stamps the kids suffer 365 days a year, kids with free meals in schools suffer 185 days a year. Which is better?

Whether kids serve nutritious food depends on the school and the country and the state. Jamie Oliver went into a school in Westboro, West Virginia, if I'm not mistaken, and tried to change the attitude of people, he half succeeded. The school basically said it wanted to do this, but the authorities basically told him to prove it was workable, and prove that it was cheap (oh great) enough to carry out.
I think if the political will were there to go to schools and say hey, this is how you do it, this is the sort of food that kids should be getting, here's the training for your cooks, here's what we want to achieve, are you on board? 99% of schools would get on board.

Free school meals should be "we're trying to educate our kids in how to eat better" and they need to stick to some kind of principle. I mean, schools, education, make people more intelligent, so why do they try and act so frikking dumb?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, it's just Obama's administration that did this then? Not Congress? Not state govts? Not previous administrations, just Obama?

I don't believe you.

The 2008 recession was BAD for small businesses. As you can see from 2008 onwards the trend was poor. Things were moving up from 2014 onward. This doesn't have much to do with Obama, it has a lot to do with Bush and Congress who allowed massive military spending, allowed the housing market to go crazy, etc etc.

Looking here it seems to be a general downturn. This isn't Obama, this is everyone in politics. Reagan had an initial rise in job creation within small businesses, but it had dropped down by the end of his time in office, the same with Bush snr. and Bush W. What does this suggest? It suggests they put in policies that work in the short term and not in the long term, they do the populist things and it goes downhill again. The same can also be said of Carter. This isn't taking into account things that were going on at this time, like a boom for Bush W which could have increased jobs without any need for any legislation or presidential actions.

To A) put the blame on Obama only is ridiculous and B) to do so without backing anything up is even more ridiculous.

I recently read an article (I can't recall where), which suggested that Obama has vision which stretched long into the future, and sets his policies for the long term, whereas most people can only see the short term prospects. Bush was a short term guy for sure. Reagan, I think was a long term guy too, but when he saw the damage his policies did to the economy, he had the good sense to reverse some of them - like the tax cuts.

By and large, I think Republicans in office are incapable of long term vision. Especially Tea Party types.

I agree, some presidents see their presidency as a stepping stone toward a better America and a better world that may not happen until well after they have left office. Other presidents are strictly pragmatist with immediate goals who have virtually no interest in what happens after they leave office. Trump seems to me to be the latter and Obama the former.

Trump seems to be a guy who thinks that govt is the same as business. He thinks he can bully others into doing what he wants because he thinks money is the only factor in the minds of other people. However he needs to listen, and he's not listening, he's just coming out with verbal diarrhea too much which is going to impact the future. So, while he is looking to the future in the same way he would for his businesses, this isn't necessarily going to benefit the long term.

I disagree about Obama. Yes, he's the typical politician looking for the political short term fix sometimes, but his policy on Muslims appears to be long term, but so was Bush's. Bush wanted a common enemy for the Republican party to fight in the long term and he got that. Obama wanted to change that and struggled to succeed because once you've thrown the shit, it's a little hard to make it unhappen.

Wow, you are like coyote..

I got news for you politicians is no different then business men.. They are human after all.

You're wrong.

Take China. China is not just interested in making money. Making money is great and they'd love to do it. However if you say to China, hey, you can make money at the expense of weakening your grip on power, the Chinese are going to tell the US to fuck off. China is getting to the point where the US is less significant than it used to be. Chinese people are buying the crap that they're making.

The US needs China as much as China needs the US. Not indispensable, but there's money to be made.

China Data: Exports – China Business Review

(You can see a larger version here)

$4 billion dollars of aircraft exports from Washington state alone. What's the deal though? Well China is developing its own aircraft. If the US stops exporting to China then the Chinese will simply fill this place with their own aircraft. The US has to stay in the market in order to have a chance in the future.

$3.7 billion from California in computer and electronic exports. Again, the Chinese are developing and looking to have their own operating system. Again, if the US pull out and the Chinese lose brand awareness, the US is screwed.

This is the problem the US has with China. If it wants to make money in the future, it's going to have the develop NOW. If Trump prevents this development, the US is going to lose a MASSIVE market in the future.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Everyone making less then 25,000 per year should get $300 per month in food stamps and be allowed to take skill based classes at their local community college backed by the tax payers. Skill based is computer, business, or any classes that help them get a better job to boost their income upwards.

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

and repubs say "LET THEM DIE!"

They don't have to die.

They just need to actively participate in their upward mobility.

I'm not a Republican.

I'll assist them in the most basic needs for a limited time.

Never say die. Suffer for their stupidity... yes Get off of your ass and work like everyone else.

Carrot and Stick. Offer the education paid for and let them know you got 5 years to accomplish it bc everyone that is able bodied in some way are being kicked off welfare.

Why do we need to pay for anything? Just make the time limit for welfare 5 years and they have that long to do something. Anything. Get off your ass and make something fucking happen. I'm sure some will just sit there for 4 1/2 of the five years but what do you want us to do about it?

The time limit already is 5 years (TANF) Most people are off within 2.5 years. However, the problem is what do you do with the mother and 3 kids or grandmother with the kids of her drug addicted daughter or the next door neighbor who has temporary custody of the kids that has no means of support after 5 years? They will just show up at DHS with the kids and say I can't feed them and can't pay the rent anymore. The kids would go into a protective custody, siting around for a few weeks then go from one foster home to another until they finally run away and eventually end up in jail or some other government facility. The cost to society is a lot less leaving the kids with Mom or their guardian and paying the welfare. The fact is getting tough with families on welfare just does not work because they don't respond like you might think.

My first thought is if she had three kids in five years on welfare obviously her job should be sucking dicks because getting fucked isn't working out. My second thought is so a grandmother has to take care of her daughters kids and there's no men around to help? Wasn't that the beginning of this failure of a family? The Grandmother had out of wedlock kids and raised them to have out of wedlock kids and suddenly I'm supposed to be working to keep this fucked up family together. The kids going to foster care and running away isn't very different from the family they have now. It's too bad there are foster kids. It's even worse being a foster kid in a single mom's home while she is out getting pregnant by the next guy for your future two or three siblings. So why exactly am I supposed to feel bad about not wanting to pay for this clusterfuck?

 

[Flopper]

Oh, it's just Obama's administration that did this then? Not Congress? Not state govts? Not previous administrations, just Obama?

I don't believe you.

The 2008 recession was BAD for small businesses. As you can see from 2008 onwards the trend was poor. Things were moving up from 2014 onward. This doesn't have much to do with Obama, it has a lot to do with Bush and Congress who allowed massive military spending, allowed the housing market to go crazy, etc etc.

Looking here it seems to be a general downturn. This isn't Obama, this is everyone in politics. Reagan had an initial rise in job creation within small businesses, but it had dropped down by the end of his time in office, the same with Bush snr. and Bush W. What does this suggest? It suggests they put in policies that work in the short term and not in the long term, they do the populist things and it goes downhill again. The same can also be said of Carter. This isn't taking into account things that were going on at this time, like a boom for Bush W which could have increased jobs without any need for any legislation or presidential actions.

To A) put the blame on Obama only is ridiculous and B) to do so without backing anything up is even more ridiculous.

I recently read an article (I can't recall where), which suggested that Obama has vision which stretched long into the future, and sets his policies for the long term, whereas most people can only see the short term prospects. Bush was a short term guy for sure. Reagan, I think was a long term guy too, but when he saw the damage his policies did to the economy, he had the good sense to reverse some of them - like the tax cuts.

By and large, I think Republicans in office are incapable of long term vision. Especially Tea Party types.

I agree, some presidents see their presidency as a stepping stone toward a better America and a better world that may not happen until well after they have left office. Other presidents are strictly pragmatist with immediate goals who have virtually no interest in what happens after they leave office. Trump seems to me to be the latter and Obama the former.

Trump seems to be a guy who thinks that govt is the same as business. He thinks he can bully others into doing what he wants because he thinks money is the only factor in the minds of other people. However he needs to listen, and he's not listening, he's just coming out with verbal diarrhea too much which is going to impact the future. So, while he is looking to the future in the same way he would for his businesses, this isn't necessarily going to benefit the long term.

I disagree about Obama. Yes, he's the typical politician looking for the political short term fix sometimes, but his policy on Muslims appears to be long term, but so was Bush's. Bush wanted a common enemy for the Republican party to fight in the long term and he got that. Obama wanted to change that and struggled to succeed because once you've thrown the shit, it's a little hard to make it unhappen.

Success in managing businesses and government may require some of the same skills however in most ways they are polar opposites. The business of business is business and the goal of business is to earn a profit in the provision of goods and services. The business of government is service well managed, one hopes, and not wasteful, but never at a profit.

In business, the non-productive are cut loose; in government, the non-productive are cut checks. That's because the society as a whole, with the full support of Republicans and Democrats alike, believes widows, orphans, the mentally or physically infirm deserve sustenance and protection. In business, it flies directly in the face of a belief in maximizing profit and winning bonuses by cutting loose the deadwood.

In a private business such as Donald Trump runs, he has total control, and conducts his business in private, answers only to those he has chooses, and reveals to the public as he sees fit. As president he has total control of nothing, answers to congress and the voters and practically nothing the president does can be kept secret.

In business, Trump can fire any one of his employees at any time. As president, he can fire only those he appointed. In his business, he can change the rules of the business. As president he follows the constitution and federal law. And finally, he can never be fired by his business but as president, his job is always on the line.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Oh, it's just Obama's administration that did this then? Not Congress? Not state govts? Not previous administrations, just Obama?

I don't believe you.

The 2008 recession was BAD for small businesses. As you can see from 2008 onwards the trend was poor. Things were moving up from 2014 onward. This doesn't have much to do with Obama, it has a lot to do with Bush and Congress who allowed massive military spending, allowed the housing market to go crazy, etc etc.

Looking here it seems to be a general downturn. This isn't Obama, this is everyone in politics. Reagan had an initial rise in job creation within small businesses, but it had dropped down by the end of his time in office, the same with Bush snr. and Bush W. What does this suggest? It suggests they put in policies that work in the short term and not in the long term, they do the populist things and it goes downhill again. The same can also be said of Carter. This isn't taking into account things that were going on at this time, like a boom for Bush W which could have increased jobs without any need for any legislation or presidential actions.

To A) put the blame on Obama only is ridiculous and B) to do so without backing anything up is even more ridiculous.

I recently read an article (I can't recall where), which suggested that Obama has vision which stretched long into the future, and sets his policies for the long term, whereas most people can only see the short term prospects. Bush was a short term guy for sure. Reagan, I think was a long term guy too, but when he saw the damage his policies did to the economy, he had the good sense to reverse some of them - like the tax cuts.

By and large, I think Republicans in office are incapable of long term vision. Especially Tea Party types.

The Tea Party types seem to be in it to make themselves feel good about themselves. They want to have simple policies that they can understand, and then shout out that complex policies are for idiots, thereby making themselves the intelligent ones.

You're the assholes trying to feel good about yourselves at the expense of others. You won't do it on your own. You won't donate time or money but you will champion taking someone elses money for your cause to make you feel special. It's not that complex when you aren't trying to screw someone else into paying the bill. It's pretty simple actually. Go to your local church and find a family that needs help and YOU step up and begin paying their bills and getting them on the right track. You do it. All by yourself. It's simple.

 

[BluesLegend]

Everyone making less then 25,000 per year should get $300 per month in food stamps and be allowed to take skill based classes at their local community college backed by the tax payers. Skill based is computer, business, or any classes that help them get a better job to boost their income upwards.

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

It's time people start helping themselves instead of demanding all their miserable lives that someone else do it for them.

Guess you have no issue with your taxes helping foreigners in another country then right? Bit retarded. Lets help poor people in a foreign country but not a poor person here.

I can agree with the OP, with one caveat. If you take this deal, you have a 5 year limit for food stamps and educational assistance.

And as for what sort of classes, skip the computer or business classes. The chances of that helping them is slim to none.

Give them training in a trade. Teach them skills such as plumbing, welding, laying brick, splicing fiber optics, or any one of a dozen vocational training classes that will give them a real job and a future.

I know in West Va if you get TANF you only get it for 5 years and you MUST get a job,volunteer or attend school of some kind.

No, let's let that foreign country help their poor people as they see fit and you provide anything you wish to a poor person using your money.

Do conservatives REALLY not understand that ALL of our taxes go wherever the government says and not where WE say they should go? I really overestimate the IQ of most people obviously...things I realize as OBVIOUS,must not be as obvious to everyone else which is just sad. I see the value in BOOSTING people UP with teaching them skills others I guess don't. They complain about welfare that comes from our taxes and isn't going to end but don't want to end that by pushing for the taxes to go towards teaching a skill instead of just giving away welfare.

YOUR kids are not my financial responsibility, is that obvious enough for you? Keep your deadbeat mooching hands off my money.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Couple of things. First, well kind of hard to work you way through college when tuition is so high. Perhaps you can blame those student loans for that. Of course, like damn near everything else these days, calling them "student" loans was NEWSPEAK. They were created and intended for the parents, the wealthy parents that had saved for college. The "student" loan allowed them to borrow the money for school and invest the money they had saved, hopefully at a better return than the student loan and especially with the government subsidizing the interest. Then, again like damn near everything else, it got out of hand. Now it has evolved into a massive wealth extraction system even including special garnishment rights that no other debt contains.

Your argument kind of reminds me of a certain ancient ass old Republican congresswoman in the neighboring district. Heard her moan the same question, why can't those students work their way through college. She did it. Worked in the summer and paid her tuition. Clueless bitch, her tuition, in the 1960's, was a whomping one hundred dollars. I went to the same school in the 80's, total cost, around seven grand a year, total cost. Today, two sons in the same state university system, twenty five grand a year total cost PER STUDENT. Which brings me to the second thing.

It can be done. I am mighty proud to say that the oldest one has been soloing it for the last two years. On is own accord, not because I couldn't help. But he has had to borrow a little bit, he has gotten some merit scholarships, and he has one of the best internships in the industry. The point is that it is damn hard to do and might near impossible to do without borrowing money.

And yet, we never hold universities accountable for their exponential increases in tuition and admininstration pay. Why is that? Why do we give them a pass and just look the other way?

why should we?
It's not anyone's business what a private school charges for tuition

Where did she say "private universities?"

So private universities are not included in all universities?

did she specifically say public universities?

When I read her post, it was flagrantly obvious to me that she was referring to public universities. I guess the obvious is more elusive to you.

And her saying "universities" gives you no justification to change that to "private universities"

so even though there was only a mention of universities you assumed it was just public universities