More blatant nonsense from the right, keeping the poor away from their schools

[frigidweirdo]

Now here's the funny thing Ray, and the reason why I'm getting exceedingly frustrated. You say the govt doesn't do anything good. You say this and I hear "the govt is broken, there's a problem" and yet every time I talk to you about fixing the govt you say "nah, nothing wrong with the govt, keep it as it is".

How on earth do you fit those two opposing arguments together inside your "consistent" head?

I never said government doesn't do anything good. What I said is that government getting involved in places they don't belong makes those things worse.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, the general welfare is limited to those things enumerated. And I never said keep government as it is. What I did say is get government out of my life. Cradle-to-Grave is what's wrong with government and yes, that needs to be fixed.

With you getting to define "where it doesn't belong" hey?

You have a view of how govt works. The problem is you want the govt out of your life, but when I state things like govt giving advantages to certain companies, which impacts you and the world around you, you ignore it, as if it's okay.

Government can't give advantages to certain companies. They can give advantages to certain industries, but not certain companies, and that only involves taxation.

Are you serious? If you really think this is the case then your eyes are so blinkered it's impossible. Do you really not see what is going on around you?

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

 

[frigidweirdo]

They're not. However pointing out that you don't need a college degree to be a millionaire doesn't do anything. People with college degrees are more likely to earn more money. We're talking averages here Ray, you know, all the people, not just a cherry picked few.

Yes, on average they do make more money because people are geared towards working for others instead of working for themselves. But as the old saying goes, you'll never get rich working for others unless it's the government.

The great thing about this country is everybody has a chance at wealth. It's more creativity, ideas and risk than education.

I've run across a few instances in my line of work. Years ago a grunt worker at one of our customers had a few ideas that would improve production and decrease waste. He took his ideas to the owner of the company. The owner of the company told him to just mind his work, and he will figure out what's best for his company.

So the worker went out and found an investor for him to start his own company using the ideas he created at his former job. The new company grew three times the size of his former employers, and it's still growing today. In fact, he recently bought out his former employers company.

Another one I know of is a guy who worked in a packaging warehouse. He too thought he could do things better and more profitable. So he used his master card to borrow ten grand to try and start his own packaging company. Before he knew it, he was swamped with work, he opened up another warehouse, then another one, and eventually had seven huge warehouses he was running.

If I were younger and had a few bucks, I would open up my own company too. I see the success my employer has but also noted many mistakes he made and is still making. It's not just me, but my coworkers and I talk about it all the time. Like the other people I mentioned, when I approach my employer about how to do things better, he told me to just do what he hired me for and let him run the company.

But then potentially there are two types of people. Those what want the security of working for others, they're not worried about being millionaires, they just want enough money to live well, have education for their kids, have healthcare, have security etc.

Then there are those people who think money is the most important, and they'll push for working on their own, in order to take the risks, they might make it rich, they might not. They might work 80 hour weeks or more and get nowhere, or they might make it super rich. It's a risk.

But the reality is in the US that it's hard to make it, you are competing against lots of companies, and ones who are bribing the govt to make their company have a bigger advantage. The point I have been making, and you've been ignoring, is that the govt makes it HARDER for the small guy to make businesses that succeed.

I don't buy that.

I stopped at my beverage store on the way home from work. As usual, I BS'd with the owner for a couple of minutes. He's a guy from India. Came here with little, worked hard his entire life, and now he has a very successful beverage store, several rental properties, and he recently bought a hotel.

His wife quit working the beverage store to run their hotel. He said he's making very good profit on it already, but working on his feet his entire life, he no longer has what it takes to do the jobs needed to be done at the hotel. He's physically worn out.

How is it somebody can come here from another country and do ten times better than most of the people born here? I'll tell you how, it's determination. Its hard work. It's the desire to have financial security and success. He has ten times the American spirit than Americans born here.

23 years ago when I was younger, I took everything I had and got everything I could borrow to buy the apartment buildings I was renting. It's not enough to live on, so I still worked. But I spend a lot of money on this place, work on it after my job and on weekends. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it, but I also envy my tenants when they are outside enjoying this weather and they don't have to do anything.

I'll never be rich, but when I retire, I won't be one of those people crying because other people have things I didn't provide for myself when I was younger. While other people spent their money on luxuries, vacations, and entertainment, I spent my money on land investments.

Potentially it is hard work. Some people don't want to waste their lives working for a little more cash they can't spend because they're working all the time.

When you retire you'll look back on your life and wonder where your life went. Many people aren't like that, they don't want to be "when I retire I'll do something...", I do things now, I always have, I've traveled the world, I've done the things I want, and I don't want to run a business.

Different people Ray, want to live life differently.

To make it rich, to hit the jackpot where you can retire early by having a business and making it successful, is usually only possible because the larger companies will try and buy you out to stop the competition.

What you don't understand is that just a few generations ago, that's all people did--work.

It was not so much for themselves, it was for the people they were going to leave behind. The mantra was for every generation to make it better for the next generation coming up.

Yeah, some people don't want to live their life that way, but those are the first to complain about people who did live life that way, and feel those who worked hard all of their life should give something to them since they have more.

Guess what? I hate working more than anybody. I would love to sit home every day and just do as I please. But if I choose that path in life, I would have nothing for myself, I would not be in control of my own destiny. I would be voting Democrat in hopes they throw me more scraps to live on.

Oh, Ray, I understand that perfectly well. I've studied history AND I've been to places where people have to work a lot to survive. They were fucked over by the rich. The rich all colluded together to make sure the poor couldn't get higher wages.

Then with the industrial revolution people started to empower themselves and unions existed, etc, and wages rose. You'd still be a subsistence farmer without the unions, as much as modern unions can be complete knobs.

No, Ray, I don't complain (others might do, but I am not them) about the rich earning their fair amount for doing hard work. Where I have a problem is when they get rich, like Trump, due to corruption and bribery.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

This is such great news huh?
Us legitimate American's are sick and tired of watching silver tooth anchors go to school for free on the backs of hard working REAL American's while middle class folks with just enough income and assets can't qualify for funding and go broke sending their kids to school.
Trump....YOU ROCK!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

This is such great news huh?
Us legitimate American's are sick and tired of watching silver tooth anchors go to school for free on the backs of hard working REAL American's while middle class folks with just enough income and assets can't qualify for funding and go broke sending their kids to school.
Trump....YOU ROCK!

Do you know about exchange rates?

A Chinese person goes to work, and an American goes to work, and both of them could do the same job, and yet an American will earn more money for it. They will pay more for housing, they'll pay more for food, but they'll pay the same for electronic goods, for flights, and when the American goes to China he thinks "fuck me, this is cheap" and when a Chinese person goes to America they think "fuck me, this is expensive".

Do you know how countries end up having their currencies worth more? Because it sounds like you don't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I never said government doesn't do anything good. What I said is that government getting involved in places they don't belong makes those things worse.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, the general welfare is limited to those things enumerated. And I never said keep government as it is. What I did say is get government out of my life. Cradle-to-Grave is what's wrong with government and yes, that needs to be fixed.

With you getting to define "where it doesn't belong" hey?

You have a view of how govt works. The problem is you want the govt out of your life, but when I state things like govt giving advantages to certain companies, which impacts you and the world around you, you ignore it, as if it's okay.

Government can't give advantages to certain companies. They can give advantages to certain industries, but not certain companies, and that only involves taxation.

Are you serious? If you really think this is the case then your eyes are so blinkered it's impossible. Do you really not see what is going on around you?

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

What it has to do with is that it's more the companies fault than it is government. What I'm trying to show you is that if one company does better than the next in their industry, it's management and not government.

Now show me the laws that states government only provides welfare to the workers of one company and not the other. Just one. There are no subsidies here. Welfare is not subsidies to anybody. Welfare is given to people that don't want to work enough hours to supply their family needs.

 

[frigidweirdo]

With you getting to define "where it doesn't belong" hey?

You have a view of how govt works. The problem is you want the govt out of your life, but when I state things like govt giving advantages to certain companies, which impacts you and the world around you, you ignore it, as if it's okay.

Government can't give advantages to certain companies. They can give advantages to certain industries, but not certain companies, and that only involves taxation.

Are you serious? If you really think this is the case then your eyes are so blinkered it's impossible. Do you really not see what is going on around you?

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

What it has to do with is that it's more the companies fault than it is government. What I'm trying to show you is that if one company does better than the next in their industry, it's management and not government.

Now show me the laws that states government only provides welfare to the workers of one company and not the other. Just one. There are no subsidies here. Welfare is not subsidies to anybody. Welfare is given to people that don't want to work enough hours to supply their family needs.

Ray, I'm not stupid okay. I don't need you to tell me that when things are even that the better company is going to perform better.

But we're not talking about that, so I'm wondering why you're bringing it up.

And it's not just about subsidizing workers Ray, I just used it as an example of how a company can basically be given an easy ride by the govt. Which happens. And you know it.

 

[Doc1]

The right is all about fucking over the poor. It has be so since the days of the Barons of mainland europe in the 13th century and it is true today!

How the fuck can a poor person or worker ever vote for the goddamn right?

Translation: "The Right are a bunch of fuckers because they refuse to pay for everything for the poor".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Government can't give advantages to certain companies. They can give advantages to certain industries, but not certain companies, and that only involves taxation.

Are you serious? If you really think this is the case then your eyes are so blinkered it's impossible. Do you really not see what is going on around you?

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

What it has to do with is that it's more the companies fault than it is government. What I'm trying to show you is that if one company does better than the next in their industry, it's management and not government.

Now show me the laws that states government only provides welfare to the workers of one company and not the other. Just one. There are no subsidies here. Welfare is not subsidies to anybody. Welfare is given to people that don't want to work enough hours to supply their family needs.

Ray, I'm not stupid okay. I don't need you to tell me that when things are even that the better company is going to perform better.

But we're not talking about that, so I'm wondering why you're bringing it up.

And it's not just about subsidizing workers Ray, I just used it as an example of how a company can basically be given an easy ride by the govt. Which happens. And you know it.

Here is what I know: Welfare is not a subsidy to anybody. Never was and never will be. Companies could care less what their workers do once they punch out for the day. It's none of their business. They don't care if their workers get $500.00 a month in food stamps and they don't care if their workers get nothing at all.

What you are trying to allude to is that Walmart (or whoever) CAN pay their workers minimum wage because of government. That's a complete lie. What they pay their workers has absolutely nothing to do with government. They offer X job for X amount of money, and it doesn't matter what goes on between the employee and government. If Walmart is paying minimum wage that allows their workers to go on some sort of welfare program, Bob's Hardware store minimum wage employees are eligible for the same.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you serious? If you really think this is the case then your eyes are so blinkered it's impossible. Do you really not see what is going on around you?

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

What it has to do with is that it's more the companies fault than it is government. What I'm trying to show you is that if one company does better than the next in their industry, it's management and not government.

Now show me the laws that states government only provides welfare to the workers of one company and not the other. Just one. There are no subsidies here. Welfare is not subsidies to anybody. Welfare is given to people that don't want to work enough hours to supply their family needs.

Ray, I'm not stupid okay. I don't need you to tell me that when things are even that the better company is going to perform better.

But we're not talking about that, so I'm wondering why you're bringing it up.

And it's not just about subsidizing workers Ray, I just used it as an example of how a company can basically be given an easy ride by the govt. Which happens. And you know it.

Here is what I know: Welfare is not a subsidy to anybody. Never was and never will be. Companies could care less what their workers do once they punch out for the day. It's none of their business. They don't care if their workers get $500.00 a month in food stamps and they don't care if their workers get nothing at all.

What you are trying to allude to is that Walmart (or whoever) CAN pay their workers minimum wage because of government. That's a complete lie. What they pay their workers has absolutely nothing to do with government. They offer X job for X amount of money, and it doesn't matter what goes on between the employee and government. If Walmart is paying minimum wage that allows their workers to go on some sort of welfare program, Bob's Hardware store minimum wage employees are eligible for the same.

Well, welfare is a subsidy for Walmart, because they're paying their employees too little.

The govt should NOT be giving handouts to people already working. And the only reason they're doing it is because of pressure etc from companies like Walmart.

Yes, other companies, who pay their workers very little money can also benefit. In these regards Walmart is not gaining a competitive advantage, they're just raking the profits in from this. Which is ridiculous. Surely a good company doesn't need this kind of thing, so why does Walmart push for this sort of thing?

 

[Carter Malone]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

How else can they keep them poor while blaming them?

Stack the deck, cheat them and then blame them for having been cheated.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Carter Malone]

More blatant nonsense from the right, keeping the poor away from their schools

More blatant nonsense from the right, keeping the poor away from their schools


^^^^

Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Tresha91203]

The federal government has no business being involved with colleges. They charge tuition on their students. Why aren't these colleges letting "poor" students enroll for free?

The poor don't have a right to force others to pay for their higher education. They can join the military and get the GI Bill if they want it that bad. So take your Fake News story and shove it.

You are exceedingly generous. I hardly call a work study program going to college for free. By your logic, why should government offer vouchers? That is going to school for free.

The work does not come close to paying for the study, hence the federal money. Vouchers are for primary education, not secondary.

If the fed govt would get the he'll out of higher education, prices would come down. No frills packages would be available instead of charging outrageous prices because students have access to Olympic competition grade pools and weigh rooms, etc.

Universities charge the outrageous rates the do because the federal govt secures the loans so they can.

 

[Tresha91203]

There are cheaper, good schools. What in the world do you mean?

These top schools have foundations created by wealthy donors to help students. As it should be. Maybe ask them?
Also ask the student to work their way through. It helps build character

Every time the govt guarantees payments, pricing goes up..

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

Then maybe the govt should run some cheaper universities in order to put some of these students through.

What I mean is the govt spends all this money on sending kids to private universities, why not just set up govt universities and send them there instead, if there's a problem with universities charging too much so they can have a football team and a million golf carts.

We have public universities in every state. One could work their way through college driving a school bus (my dad) or working at the Student Union (my mother). Then, the Feds backed student loans and the public universities jacked up tuition to astronomical levels, REQUIRING poor students to take loans because one can't pay the new higher rates with a job.

The federal government caused the problem. There is no dispute about what happened.

Now, we have one group calling for us to scrap this debacle and go back to what worked. Farm children would, once again, be able to work themselves through school. The other group wants to make the taxpayer pay the inflated rate for that education rather than reduce the cost of the education.

We CAN reduce the cost. I cannot fathom what makes anyone think, "Education is ridiculously expensive and includes way too many fancy bells and whistles. Let's get the taxpayers to buy this poor person a gender studies PhD."

If taxpayers foot the bill, can we have a say in the degrees we fund? There are many we have a need for and many in fields way too saturated or useless.

 

[Tresha91203]

I never said government doesn't do anything good. What I said is that government getting involved in places they don't belong makes those things worse.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, the general welfare is limited to those things enumerated. And I never said keep government as it is. What I did say is get government out of my life. Cradle-to-Grave is what's wrong with government and yes, that needs to be fixed.

With you getting to define "where it doesn't belong" hey?

You have a view of how govt works. The problem is you want the govt out of your life, but when I state things like govt giving advantages to certain companies, which impacts you and the world around you, you ignore it, as if it's okay.

Government can't give advantages to certain companies. They can give advantages to certain industries, but not certain companies, and that only involves taxation.

Are you serious? If you really think this is the case then your eyes are so blinkered it's impossible. Do you really not see what is going on around you?

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

What it has to do with is that it's more the companies fault than it is government. What I'm trying to show you is that if one company does better than the next in their industry, it's management and not government.

Now show me the laws that states government only provides welfare to the workers of one company and not the other. Just one. There are no subsidies here. Welfare is not subsidies to anybody. Welfare is given to people that don't want to work enough hours to supply their family needs.

Ray, I'm not stupid okay. I don't need you to tell me that when things are even that the better company is going to perform better.

But we're not talking about that, so I'm wondering why you're bringing it up.

And it's not just about subsidizing workers Ray, I just used it as an example of how a company can basically be given an easy ride by the govt. Which happens. And you know it.

Here is what I know: Welfare is not a subsidy to anybody. Never was and never will be. Companies could care less what their workers do once they punch out for the day. It's none of their business. They don't care if their workers get $500.00 a month in food stamps and they don't care if their workers get nothing at all.

What you are trying to allude to is that Walmart (or whoever) CAN pay their workers minimum wage because of government. That's a complete lie. What they pay their workers has absolutely nothing to do with government. They offer X job for X amount of money, and it doesn't matter what goes on between the employee and government. If Walmart is paying minimum wage that allows their workers to go on some sort of welfare program, Bob's Hardware store minimum wage employees are eligible for the same.

Well, welfare is a subsidy for Walmart, because they're paying their employees too little.

The govt should NOT be giving handouts to people already working. And the only reason they're doing it is because of pressure etc from companies like Walmart.

Yes, other companies, who pay their workers very little money can also benefit. In these regards Walmart is not gaining a competitive advantage, they're just raking the profits in from this. Which is ridiculous. Surely a good company doesn't need this kind of thing, so why does Walmart push for this sort of thing?

Push for what sort of thing? Walmart doesn't push for anything.

Welfare is not a subsidy to Walmart because Walmart doesn't benefit from this propaganda subsidy you speak of. It doesn't effect them one way or another. They will do fine whether government gives their workers welfare or not.

And how is Walmart paying their employees too little? What is too little? Walmart offers X job for X amount of money. The applicant has the ability to accept the job for that money or not. If the applicant accepts the job, then he or she did so on their own accord. Nobody forced them to take the job. And if the applicant believes their labor is worth more, then apply at a company that will pay more. If no company will pay more for your skill set, that's not Walmart's fault. That's your fault.

 

[Fang]

I have many friends who worked part time jobs and put themselves through college. Liberals need to get off their lazy asses and stop whining about someone else not paying for them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are cheaper, good schools. What in the world do you mean?

These top schools have foundations created by wealthy donors to help students. As it should be. Maybe ask them?
Also ask the student to work their way through. It helps build character

Every time the govt guarantees payments, pricing goes up..

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

Then maybe the govt should run some cheaper universities in order to put some of these students through.

What I mean is the govt spends all this money on sending kids to private universities, why not just set up govt universities and send them there instead, if there's a problem with universities charging too much so they can have a football team and a million golf carts.

We have public universities in every state. One could work their way through college driving a school bus (my dad) or working at the Student Union (my mother). Then, the Feds backed student loans and the public universities jacked up tuition to astronomical levels, REQUIRING poor students to take loans because one can't pay the new higher rates with a job.

The federal government caused the problem. There is no dispute about what happened.

Now, we have one group calling for us to scrap this debacle and go back to what worked. Farm children would, once again, be able to work themselves through school. The other group wants to make the taxpayer pay the inflated rate for that education rather than reduce the cost of the education.

We CAN reduce the cost. I cannot fathom what makes anyone think, "Education is ridiculously expensive and includes way too many fancy bells and whistles. Let's get the taxpayers to buy this poor person a gender studies PhD."

If taxpayers foot the bill, can we have a say in the degrees we fund? There are many we have a need for and many in fields way too saturated or useless.

Which comes back, again and again, to the same old problem.

The people vote negatively because the system isn't up to the task, they elect politicians who aren't interested in the people, because there are only two parties people don't have any choice.

Change the system, then things can start to fix themselves.

 

[frigidweirdo]

With you getting to define "where it doesn't belong" hey?

You have a view of how govt works. The problem is you want the govt out of your life, but when I state things like govt giving advantages to certain companies, which impacts you and the world around you, you ignore it, as if it's okay.

Government can't give advantages to certain companies. They can give advantages to certain industries, but not certain companies, and that only involves taxation.

Are you serious? If you really think this is the case then your eyes are so blinkered it's impossible. Do you really not see what is going on around you?

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

 

[Tresha91203]

There are cheaper, good schools. What in the world do you mean?

These top schools have foundations created by wealthy donors to help students. As it should be. Maybe ask them?
Also ask the student to work their way through. It helps build character

Every time the govt guarantees payments, pricing goes up..

Then maybe the govt should run some cheaper universities in order to put some of these students through.

What I mean is the govt spends all this money on sending kids to private universities, why not just set up govt universities and send them there instead, if there's a problem with universities charging too much so they can have a football team and a million golf carts.

We have public universities in every state. One could work their way through college driving a school bus (my dad) or working at the Student Union (my mother). Then, the Feds backed student loans and the public universities jacked up tuition to astronomical levels, REQUIRING poor students to take loans because one can't pay the new higher rates with a job.

The federal government caused the problem. There is no dispute about what happened.

Now, we have one group calling for us to scrap this debacle and go back to what worked. Farm children would, once again, be able to work themselves through school. The other group wants to make the taxpayer pay the inflated rate for that education rather than reduce the cost of the education.

We CAN reduce the cost. I cannot fathom what makes anyone think, "Education is ridiculously expensive and includes way too many fancy bells and whistles. Let's get the taxpayers to buy this poor person a gender studies PhD."

If taxpayers foot the bill, can we have a say in the degrees we fund? There are many we have a need for and many in fields way too saturated or useless.

Which comes back, again and again, to the same old problem.

The people vote negatively because the system isn't up to the task, they elect politicians who aren't interested in the people, because there are only two parties people don't have any choice.

Change the system, then things can start to fix themselves.

Sure, that's a great idea, one I'm down for. Meanwhile, we could scrap this debacle and go back to the way that proved to be better. That would be a lot faster, so more people could become educated during this revolution.

 

[Tresha91203]

Government can't give advantages to certain companies. They can give advantages to certain industries, but not certain companies, and that only involves taxation.

Are you serious? If you really think this is the case then your eyes are so blinkered it's impossible. Do you really not see what is going on around you?

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.