Since free college isn't free...what is wrong with actually paying it back?

[Wilbur Right]

If there was ONE good idea thought of and implemented by republicans, there MIGHT be reason to listen to their ideas.

Unfortunatley there are no good republicans ideas. All they offer is lies and excuses and bullshit.

Republicans suck big donkey dicks. Then lie about what they did.

Republicans gave us OBama. Republicans will give us Hillary. Republicans refuse to do their job in congress. Remember that HUGE victory that gave control of congress to repubs?

And with all that control, nothing has been accomplished. Pitiful fucks.

Republicans in congress do nothing to reign in obama. Let him do whatever he wants. What the fuck is wrong with republicans, besides being lying, lazy fucks. And great con men.

Then you have the republican supporters. Proof that our education system has really failed a number of our citizens. Why would anybody suppor a republican if they weren't at least partially brain dead?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Dont even get me started on the lazy assed welfare mooching republicans. Or how republican men cant control their women and keep them from getting abortions.

But let's talk about republican obsessions.
Obsessed with gays and guns.

I can see Ray in a men's room. Some guy comes in and heads to a stall. Ray heard that little tinkle sound that women make when they are peeing. Ray doesn't hear the splash that a man makes when pissing in a toilet.

Ray pulls his gun and demands to see the person's dick when he/she exits the stall. What fun Ray will have. If there is no dick, what you gonna do next Ray? Shoot em? Citizens arrest? Ask for a date? What you gonna DO?

A right winger woman sees a rather large woman enter the rest room, visit a stall and she hears the splash of a man standing up pissing.

What's a poor republican woman to do? Pull her gun and demand to see a vagina? Or ask for a date?

And why is it that republicans spend so much time in public restrooms? And they let their young children spend time in public restrooms alone. Wtf?

Republicans spend so much time in and around public restrooms cause they are trolling for a date. Or a wife. Or a husband.

The republican preferred method of finding a mate is on the gun range. Or at a gun show. Or at a Wal-Mart. This assures the male republican he will have a subservient woman to clean the underwear he keeps shitting in cause the MUSLIMS are coming to take him away and cut his head off.

Yep them republicans got it going on.

 

[Andylusion]

Dont even get me started on the lazy assed welfare mooching republicans. Or how republican men cant control their women and keep them from getting abortions.

But let's talk about republican obsessions.
Obsessed with gays and guns.

I can see Ray in a men's room. Some guy comes in and heads to a stall. Ray heard that little tinkle sound that women make when they are peeing. Ray doesn't hear the splash that a man makes when pissing in a toilet.

Ray pulls his gun and demands to see the person's dick when he/she exits the stall. What fun Ray will have. If there is no dick, what you gonna do next Ray? Shoot em? Citizens arrest? Ask for a date? What you gonna DO?

A right winger woman sees a rather large woman enter the rest room, visit a stall and she hears the splash of a man standing up pissing.

What's a poor republican woman to do? Pull her gun and demand to see a vagina? Or ask for a date?

And why is it that republicans spend so much time in public restrooms? And they let their young children spend time in public restrooms alone. Wtf?

Republicans spend so much time in and around public restrooms cause they are trolling for a date. Or a wife. Or a husband.

The republican preferred method of finding a mate is on the gun range. Or at a gun show. Or at a Wal-Mart. This assures the male republican he will have a subservient woman to clean the underwear he keeps shitting in cause the MUSLIMS are coming to take him away and cut his head off.

Yep them republicans got it going on.

Why should Republicans not collect money if you are willing to give it? If you are stupid enough to hand out cash, how am I the problem for taking it? Trust me, if you vote to pay for my car... I'm going to take every single penny I can get from you. Why not?

How exactly would I be able to stop my wife if she wanted an abortion? What do you expect 'republican men' whatever that means, to stop their wives if they wanted to? Chain her up? Wouldn't you complain about that too?

The rest of your post was barely coherent, and boring. As for where we find a mate...... Yes, I'll take those girls, over your girls any day.

So that's your left-wing feminist crowd.

So yeah... I'm going for the Walmart, Gun Range, and Gun Show girls, over your type any day. And any man with correctly working eyeballs would.

 

[Slade3200]

Someday, tuition free college will be like same sex marriage,

it'll be the law of the, and the rightwingers won't even bother talking about it anymore.

Correct. When cradle-to-gravers take over this land, the land will be worthless because nobody will have any more money.

Where will all the money go?

To those poor people you speak of.

All money handed to government is used, abused and wasted in many cases. Money is better managed by the creators of that money and not the takers. If we don't put a stop to liberalism in our government, we just may have free college. After that, free cars, free boats, free swimming pools, free houses and so on.

It's already happening of course, but that's why it's important to keep Democrats out of power; to stop it from spreading.

Great, so the poor people get the money... What do they do with the money?? The spend it... Where then does it go... Follow the trail... I bet some of it ends up in your pockets... The landlords, the business owners... Eventually the 1%

 

[Slade3200]

Hey ray you asshole. Follow your own advice from above.
If you cant afford (which evidently you cant from your whining)
to pay the real estate taxes to support schools, follow your own advice. Move. Mississippi has a sucko school system. Move there.

Btw ray. You aint "paying" your real estate tax. Your tenants are. Or are you such a pitiful landlord that you dont cover your PITI from your rents?

If my tenants are paying my real estate taxes, why are they not made out in their name instead of mine?

I never said I couldn't afford my property taxes, what I said is that it's plain robbery that people are able to take money from me to support their kids education. If you want kids, you should support them: you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and you should pay for their education. They are supposed to be YOUR responsibility--not your neighbors responsibility.

But I understand where you are coming from. Our society unfortunately has been brainwashed that parents are not responsible--the village is supposed to be. And as these liberals create more cradle-to-gravers like yourself, we distance ourselves further and further from a country that was the freest country in the entire world.

I hear there's plenty of areas in Africa that are pretty damn free, you can do whatever the fuck you want... You can even kidnap children and train them to kill for you if you want... You should check it out

Typical lib response: if you don't like it the lib way, move out of the country.

Well that would be great if there were a country like the US without liberalism. But if liberals don't like a free country, I don't know why you people don't move out!

I know of a place where nobody has guns except the government; a place where everybody eats the same; a place where everybody is equally poor; a place where healthcare is free; a place where government watches your every move.......

It's called prison, and many a Democrat already occupy it.

I just told you a place that will let you do whatever you want... You can even bring all your guns. Might do you some good living in a place where all your brilliant ideas are an actual reality

And if we ever get intelligent enough to do things the conservative way, will you liberals move to another country? You know, a place where government takes care of everything like Cuba or North Korea?

I doubt it. In our country, if you don't like the way things are running, you try to change it.

I created a post last month asking people what they would think if we divided our country in half: liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. The results were very telling.

I was expecting people to chime in on how much better their side of the country would be and why. Yes, some conservatives did do that, but liberals didn't. Instead, liberals were angered at my post.

None could tell me why a total liberal side of our country would be better. The reason is they couldn't. The conservative side would be ten times better, except we'd have to build a wall to keep the liberals from coming over. Other than that, a great idea.

In the end, the only conclusion I could draw is that deep down inside, even liberals know their ideas are bad. They won't admit it of course, and they continue fighting conservatism even though they know it's the better social model.

The reason is because most people, myself included see virtue in both conservative and liberal agendas. I've been pinned in our discussions to the liberal wall but I actually have many conservative views and think our governemnt thrives with a good balance of both agendas. All Liberal would be Bad... All Conservative would be Bad... Its about understanding the virtues of both and being knowledgeable to know when and where to institute the best policies to address the particular situation. What works out in the country isn't going to work the same in the inner city...

 

[Andylusion]

Someday, tuition free college will be like same sex marriage,

it'll be the law of the, and the rightwingers won't even bother talking about it anymore.

Correct. When cradle-to-gravers take over this land, the land will be worthless because nobody will have any more money.

Where will all the money go?

To those poor people you speak of.

All money handed to government is used, abused and wasted in many cases. Money is better managed by the creators of that money and not the takers. If we don't put a stop to liberalism in our government, we just may have free college. After that, free cars, free boats, free swimming pools, free houses and so on.

It's already happening of course, but that's why it's important to keep Democrats out of power; to stop it from spreading.

Great, so the poor people get the money... What do they do with the money?? The spend it... Where then does it go... Follow the trail... I bet some of it ends up in your pockets... The landlords, the business owners... Eventually the 1%

What you are eluding to, is a very difficult concept, but I'll try and explain it as quickly as we can.

Money is not wealth. Wealth is stuff. Things. Objects that have value. Money is just paper.

If you doubt this, think of it in terms of two people being abandoned on deserted islands. One person is given trillions of dollars of paper money. The other person is given a life time supply of stuff. Food, water, fuel, pots and pans, building materials, whatever.

Which one between the two, is wealthy? The guy with a trillion dollars, or the guy with all the stuff?

The guy with the stuff. The guy with the money, is going to die. Why? Because money only has value... in what it can be traded for. That's it. Aside from kindling, a man isolated on an island, with nothing to buy with the money, is completely impoverished.

So you seem to be talking about the flow of paper money in the economy.

What Ray is talking about is value. When you increase taxes on those that produce, and give money out to those that do not produce..... fewer and fewer people produce. More and more, sit on government welfare rolls collecting checks.

As a result less and less value is produced. And just like the guy on the island with a trillion dollars, what value will our dollars have, when fewer and fewer things are produced in our economy? Yes, we'll have paper dollars. But what will we buy, when so few are working, and so many are sitting around collecting welfare? That's the problem.

And by the way, not very much money goes to the poor.

If you really want to give money to the poor, you should give to a local charity, rather than government. At most, about 30¢ out of every dollar in taxes you pay, goes to the poor. (this is out of funding for programs for the poor, not total tax).

 

[Andylusion]

If my tenants are paying my real estate taxes, why are they not made out in their name instead of mine?

I never said I couldn't afford my property taxes, what I said is that it's plain robbery that people are able to take money from me to support their kids education. If you want kids, you should support them: you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and you should pay for their education. They are supposed to be YOUR responsibility--not your neighbors responsibility.

But I understand where you are coming from. Our society unfortunately has been brainwashed that parents are not responsible--the village is supposed to be. And as these liberals create more cradle-to-gravers like yourself, we distance ourselves further and further from a country that was the freest country in the entire world.

I hear there's plenty of areas in Africa that are pretty damn free, you can do whatever the fuck you want... You can even kidnap children and train them to kill for you if you want... You should check it out

Typical lib response: if you don't like it the lib way, move out of the country.

Well that would be great if there were a country like the US without liberalism. But if liberals don't like a free country, I don't know why you people don't move out!

I know of a place where nobody has guns except the government; a place where everybody eats the same; a place where everybody is equally poor; a place where healthcare is free; a place where government watches your every move.......

It's called prison, and many a Democrat already occupy it.

I just told you a place that will let you do whatever you want... You can even bring all your guns. Might do you some good living in a place where all your brilliant ideas are an actual reality

And if we ever get intelligent enough to do things the conservative way, will you liberals move to another country? You know, a place where government takes care of everything like Cuba or North Korea?

I doubt it. In our country, if you don't like the way things are running, you try to change it.

I created a post last month asking people what they would think if we divided our country in half: liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. The results were very telling.

I was expecting people to chime in on how much better their side of the country would be and why. Yes, some conservatives did do that, but liberals didn't. Instead, liberals were angered at my post.

None could tell me why a total liberal side of our country would be better. The reason is they couldn't. The conservative side would be ten times better, except we'd have to build a wall to keep the liberals from coming over. Other than that, a great idea.

In the end, the only conclusion I could draw is that deep down inside, even liberals know their ideas are bad. They won't admit it of course, and they continue fighting conservatism even though they know it's the better social model.

The reason is because most people, myself included see virtue in both conservative and liberal agendas. I've been pinned in our discussions to the liberal wall but I actually have many conservative views and think our governemnt thrives with a good balance of both agendas. All Liberal would be Bad... All Conservative would be Bad... Its about understanding the virtues of both and being knowledgeable to know when and where to institute the best policies to address the particular situation. What works out in the country isn't going to work the same in the inner city...

I would agree with your last line. That's why we were never supposed to be democracy, but rather a Republic. That's why the Federal Government, isn't supposed to be dictating policy nation wide, except in those specific areas given to it in the constitution.

There should be no EPA. No NEA. No universal drug laws. No universal energy controls and so on. What works in New York, may not work in Wisconsin. What works in California, may not work in Texas. Each state is supposed to be governing themselves.

When you see conservatives oppose this and that Federal Policy, that even may seem like a good policy, this is why. It may in fact be a good policy, but it's not the Federal governments jurisdiction to control the states.

That said, no I disagree with you. I'd be hard pressed to find anything virtuous in the liberal agenda. When people say that there is virtue in left-wing politics, they usually mean they have good goals. A good goal, is not the same as a moral policy.

For example, we want everyone to be wealthy. Conservatives want that, and so do left-wingers. But the conservatives want everyone to win, by being frugal, economical, and industrious. They want to help people win by encouraging them to succeed. I want people to win, by going out and succeeding, by working hard, finding things they can do, and working towards their goals.

That's not what left-wingers want. Never has. From my high school days, until this day, the left-wing has wanted to help people win, by destroying those who are winning. How can we raise taxes on the rich. Increase regulations on the successful. By taking away their inheritances, by punishing those who earn the most.

There is nothing moral, or virtuous in that position. It's the position of greed and envy. OWS, was not about teaching people to save and invest.... it wasn't about working hard and succeeding.... it wasn't about creating new businesses, and achieving a goal.

OWS was all about "They have money. I want their money. If I can't have their money, then they should have that money either".

That's what it was all about.

What policy of the left, would you consider to be 'virtue"?

 

[Slade3200]

Someday, tuition free college will be like same sex marriage,

it'll be the law of the, and the rightwingers won't even bother talking about it anymore.

Correct. When cradle-to-gravers take over this land, the land will be worthless because nobody will have any more money.

Where will all the money go?

To those poor people you speak of.

All money handed to government is used, abused and wasted in many cases. Money is better managed by the creators of that money and not the takers. If we don't put a stop to liberalism in our government, we just may have free college. After that, free cars, free boats, free swimming pools, free houses and so on.

It's already happening of course, but that's why it's important to keep Democrats out of power; to stop it from spreading.

Great, so the poor people get the money... What do they do with the money?? The spend it... Where then does it go... Follow the trail... I bet some of it ends up in your pockets... The landlords, the business owners... Eventually the 1%

What you are eluding to, is a very difficult concept, but I'll try and explain it as quickly as we can.

Money is not wealth. Wealth is stuff. Things. Objects that have value. Money is just paper.

If you doubt this, think of it in terms of two people being abandoned on deserted islands. One person is given trillions of dollars of paper money. The other person is given a life time supply of stuff. Food, water, fuel, pots and pans, building materials, whatever.

Which one between the two, is wealthy? The guy with a trillion dollars, or the guy with all the stuff?

The guy with the stuff. The guy with the money, is going to die. Why? Because money only has value... in what it can be traded for. That's it. Aside from kindling, a man isolated on an island, with nothing to buy with the money, is completely impoverished.

So you seem to be talking about the flow of paper money in the economy.

What Ray is talking about is value. When you increase taxes on those that produce, and give money out to those that do not produce..... fewer and fewer people produce. More and more, sit on government welfare rolls collecting checks.

As a result less and less value is produced. And just like the guy on the island with a trillion dollars, what value will our dollars have, when fewer and fewer things are produced in our economy? Yes, we'll have paper dollars. But what will we buy, when so few are working, and so many are sitting around collecting welfare? That's the problem.

And by the way, not very much money goes to the poor.

View attachment 72634

If you really want to give money to the poor, you should give to a local charity, rather than government. At most, about 30¢ out of every dollar in taxes you pay, goes to the poor. (this is out of funding for programs for the poor, not total tax).

I agree with you on this one. I prefer charity donations over governemnt programs... Don't think it is a all or nothing situation, but I think private orgs operate better than gov orgs, no doubt... My point is, money does flow, and what is given to the poor get cycled through out economy... I imagine from reading your last post you have an understanding of this...

 

[Markle]

If you can't afford that tax, then you simply must move to someplace you can afford.

Hey ray you asshole. Follow your own advice from above.
If you cant afford (which evidently you cant from your whining)
to pay the real estate taxes to support schools, follow your own advice. Move. Mississippi has a sucko school system. Move there.

Btw ray. You aint "paying" your real estate tax. Your tenants are. Or are you such a pitiful landlord that you dont cover your PITI from your rents?

If my tenants are paying my real estate taxes, why are they not made out in their name instead of mine?

I never said I couldn't afford my property taxes, what I said is that it's plain robbery that people are able to take money from me to support their kids education. If you want kids, you should support them: you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and you should pay for their education. They are supposed to be YOUR responsibility--not your neighbors responsibility.

But I understand where you are coming from. Our society unfortunately has been brainwashed that parents are not responsible--the village is supposed to be. And as these liberals create more cradle-to-gravers like yourself, we distance ourselves further and further from a country that was the freest country in the entire world.

Of course, they pay your real estate taxes. They simply do not get the expense deduction. They also pay your mortgage, home insurance, the new roof etc., etc., etc.... With commercial leases, the tenant usually does pay taxes, insurance and maintenance. It is called a net lease. What you have with your residential tenants is a gross lease.

All costs are considered when coming up with a rental price. No matter what kind of lease you may have, that's the way it's calculated.

One of the reasons people rent (and growing all the time) is they don't want to deal with those costs. They pay the rent, and I deal with the costs. But that doesn't mean they are paying anything on my behalf.

My tenants can come home and just relax. That's part of the deal. I'm the one that mows the lawn, I'm the one that removes the snow, I'm the one who repairs the items in those units, I'm the one who has to sort through all the receipts and taxes, I'm the one that has to deal with the city and the problems they bring on.

I spend every vacation tending to this place while my tenants are free to use their time off of work for relaxation. Me? I haven't had a vacation in 25 years.

So it's not charity as you and others may suggest. I'm being paid to take on the burdens of home ownership that my tenants don't have to deal with. It's a trade-off no different than if you buy a basket of apples from your farmers market. You exchange money to others that did the work you didn't want to do.

Here is what I said, no different than your rant here.

Of course, they pay your real estate taxes. They simply do not get the expense deduction. They also pay your mortgage, home insurance, the new roof etc., etc., etc.... With commercial leases, the tenant usually does pay taxes, insurance and maintenance. It is called a net lease. What you have with your residential tenants is a gross lease.

You just had to make a word salad to say the same thing.

That you haven't had a vacation in 25 years sounds like a personal problem and poor planning.

On your death bed I bet you're going to be wishing you had taken fewer vacations, right?

 

[Slade3200]

I hear there's plenty of areas in Africa that are pretty damn free, you can do whatever the fuck you want... You can even kidnap children and train them to kill for you if you want... You should check it out

Typical lib response: if you don't like it the lib way, move out of the country.

Well that would be great if there were a country like the US without liberalism. But if liberals don't like a free country, I don't know why you people don't move out!

I know of a place where nobody has guns except the government; a place where everybody eats the same; a place where everybody is equally poor; a place where healthcare is free; a place where government watches your every move.......

It's called prison, and many a Democrat already occupy it.

I just told you a place that will let you do whatever you want... You can even bring all your guns. Might do you some good living in a place where all your brilliant ideas are an actual reality

And if we ever get intelligent enough to do things the conservative way, will you liberals move to another country? You know, a place where government takes care of everything like Cuba or North Korea?

I doubt it. In our country, if you don't like the way things are running, you try to change it.

I created a post last month asking people what they would think if we divided our country in half: liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. The results were very telling.

I was expecting people to chime in on how much better their side of the country would be and why. Yes, some conservatives did do that, but liberals didn't. Instead, liberals were angered at my post.

None could tell me why a total liberal side of our country would be better. The reason is they couldn't. The conservative side would be ten times better, except we'd have to build a wall to keep the liberals from coming over. Other than that, a great idea.

In the end, the only conclusion I could draw is that deep down inside, even liberals know their ideas are bad. They won't admit it of course, and they continue fighting conservatism even though they know it's the better social model.

The reason is because most people, myself included see virtue in both conservative and liberal agendas. I've been pinned in our discussions to the liberal wall but I actually have many conservative views and think our governemnt thrives with a good balance of both agendas. All Liberal would be Bad... All Conservative would be Bad... Its about understanding the virtues of both and being knowledgeable to know when and where to institute the best policies to address the particular situation. What works out in the country isn't going to work the same in the inner city...

I would agree with your last line. That's why we were never supposed to be democracy, but rather a Republic. That's why the Federal Government, isn't supposed to be dictating policy nation wide, except in those specific areas given to it in the constitution.

There should be no EPA. No NEA. No universal drug laws. No universal energy controls and so on. What works in New York, may not work in Wisconsin. What works in California, may not work in Texas. Each state is supposed to be governing themselves.

When you see conservatives oppose this and that Federal Policy, that even may seem like a good policy, this is why. It may in fact be a good policy, but it's not the Federal governments jurisdiction to control the states.

That said, no I disagree with you. I'd be hard pressed to find anything virtuous in the liberal agenda. When people say that there is virtue in left-wing politics, they usually mean they have good goals. A good goal, is not the same as a moral policy.

For example, we want everyone to be wealthy. Conservatives want that, and so do left-wingers. But the conservatives want everyone to win, by being frugal, economical, and industrious. They want to help people win by encouraging them to succeed. I want people to win, by going out and succeeding, by working hard, finding things they can do, and working towards their goals.

That's not what left-wingers want. Never has. From my high school days, until this day, the left-wing has wanted to help people win, by destroying those who are winning. How can we raise taxes on the rich. Increase regulations on the successful. By taking away their inheritances, by punishing those who earn the most.

There is nothing moral, or virtuous in that position. It's the position of greed and envy. OWS, was not about teaching people to save and invest.... it wasn't about working hard and succeeding.... it wasn't about creating new businesses, and achieving a goal.

OWS was all about "They have money. I want their money. If I can't have their money, then they should have that money either".

That's what it was all about.

What policy of the left, would you consider to be 'virtue"?

The virtue of the liberal agenda is within the elements that stick up for equality and fair practice for those who are without. It is the voice of the weak, poor, and oppressed. Without this voice the powerful and wealthy would completely take over and we would be in a bad situation. You use language about destroying winners and the successful through taxation and regulation but has anybody really be destroyed? To your point, taxation is only removing currency, not wealth, right? Without regulation the public would be victims of corporations that would do anything to increase profits. Thats the goal of capitalism, to profit. The goal of government is to create a safe environment and give ALL it's people the best possible opportunity. Of course there is a balance that needs to be reached as over regulation and over taxing can be crippling, but it should also be acknowledged that these things are necessary elements. I agree with you that many things should be left up to the states. I do not agree about the EPA as protecting our environment is a critical thing that effects not only us but the world we live in and is something that will continue to affect our future generations. The EPA's work can be done better but certainly should not be ignored.

Like I said in my last post, if you take anything to an extreme it can be painted as damaging. Thats what conservatives and liberals do to each other and it causes endless debates over half truths... It is my hope that people can start being more honest with themselves and each other by acknowledging their understanding of both the goals and the successes of the other side. This will open a door to cooperation and a collaboration of ideas... This is essential for our government to progress.

 

[Norman]

I hear there's plenty of areas in Africa that are pretty damn free, you can do whatever the fuck you want... You can even kidnap children and train them to kill for you if you want... You should check it out

Typical lib response: if you don't like it the lib way, move out of the country.

Well that would be great if there were a country like the US without liberalism. But if liberals don't like a free country, I don't know why you people don't move out!

I know of a place where nobody has guns except the government; a place where everybody eats the same; a place where everybody is equally poor; a place where healthcare is free; a place where government watches your every move.......

It's called prison, and many a Democrat already occupy it.

I just told you a place that will let you do whatever you want... You can even bring all your guns. Might do you some good living in a place where all your brilliant ideas are an actual reality

And if we ever get intelligent enough to do things the conservative way, will you liberals move to another country? You know, a place where government takes care of everything like Cuba or North Korea?

I doubt it. In our country, if you don't like the way things are running, you try to change it.

I created a post last month asking people what they would think if we divided our country in half: liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. The results were very telling.

I was expecting people to chime in on how much better their side of the country would be and why. Yes, some conservatives did do that, but liberals didn't. Instead, liberals were angered at my post.

None could tell me why a total liberal side of our country would be better. The reason is they couldn't. The conservative side would be ten times better, except we'd have to build a wall to keep the liberals from coming over. Other than that, a great idea.

In the end, the only conclusion I could draw is that deep down inside, even liberals know their ideas are bad. They won't admit it of course, and they continue fighting conservatism even though they know it's the better social model.

The reason is because most people, myself included see virtue in both conservative and liberal agendas. I've been pinned in our discussions to the liberal wall but I actually have many conservative views and think our governemnt thrives with a good balance of both agendas. All Liberal would be Bad... All Conservative would be Bad... Its about understanding the virtues of both and being knowledgeable to know when and where to institute the best policies to address the particular situation. What works out in the country isn't going to work the same in the inner city...

I would agree with your last line. That's why we were never supposed to be democracy, but rather a Republic. That's why the Federal Government, isn't supposed to be dictating policy nation wide, except in those specific areas given to it in the constitution.

There should be no EPA. No NEA. No universal drug laws. No universal energy controls and so on. What works in New York, may not work in Wisconsin. What works in California, may not work in Texas. Each state is supposed to be governing themselves.

When you see conservatives oppose this and that Federal Policy, that even may seem like a good policy, this is why. It may in fact be a good policy, but it's not the Federal governments jurisdiction to control the states.

That said, no I disagree with you. I'd be hard pressed to find anything virtuous in the liberal agenda. When people say that there is virtue in left-wing politics, they usually mean they have good goals. A good goal, is not the same as a moral policy.

For example, we want everyone to be wealthy. Conservatives want that, and so do left-wingers. But the conservatives want everyone to win, by being frugal, economical, and industrious. They want to help people win by encouraging them to succeed. I want people to win, by going out and succeeding, by working hard, finding things they can do, and working towards their goals.

That's not what left-wingers want. Never has. From my high school days, until this day, the left-wing has wanted to help people win, by destroying those who are winning. How can we raise taxes on the rich. Increase regulations on the successful. By taking away their inheritances, by punishing those who earn the most.

There is nothing moral, or virtuous in that position. It's the position of greed and envy. OWS, was not about teaching people to save and invest.... it wasn't about working hard and succeeding.... it wasn't about creating new businesses, and achieving a goal.

OWS was all about "They have money. I want their money. If I can't have their money, then they should have that money either".

That's what it was all about.

What policy of the left, would you consider to be 'virtue"?

I think it's fascinating that anyone is still delusional enough to think that the regressive leftist of the world care about the poor in any way... Maybe some truly brainwashed idiots do, but the overwhelming majority just wants your money and is prepared to use any excuse imaginable to get it. As long as this reality is not recognized a lot of people will be banging their heads to the wall and wasting their time, proposing effective solutions to something the regressives could care less about.

 

[Slade3200]

Typical lib response: if you don't like it the lib way, move out of the country.

Well that would be great if there were a country like the US without liberalism. But if liberals don't like a free country, I don't know why you people don't move out!

I know of a place where nobody has guns except the government; a place where everybody eats the same; a place where everybody is equally poor; a place where healthcare is free; a place where government watches your every move.......

It's called prison, and many a Democrat already occupy it.

I just told you a place that will let you do whatever you want... You can even bring all your guns. Might do you some good living in a place where all your brilliant ideas are an actual reality

And if we ever get intelligent enough to do things the conservative way, will you liberals move to another country? You know, a place where government takes care of everything like Cuba or North Korea?

I doubt it. In our country, if you don't like the way things are running, you try to change it.

I created a post last month asking people what they would think if we divided our country in half: liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. The results were very telling.

I was expecting people to chime in on how much better their side of the country would be and why. Yes, some conservatives did do that, but liberals didn't. Instead, liberals were angered at my post.

None could tell me why a total liberal side of our country would be better. The reason is they couldn't. The conservative side would be ten times better, except we'd have to build a wall to keep the liberals from coming over. Other than that, a great idea.

In the end, the only conclusion I could draw is that deep down inside, even liberals know their ideas are bad. They won't admit it of course, and they continue fighting conservatism even though they know it's the better social model.

The reason is because most people, myself included see virtue in both conservative and liberal agendas. I've been pinned in our discussions to the liberal wall but I actually have many conservative views and think our governemnt thrives with a good balance of both agendas. All Liberal would be Bad... All Conservative would be Bad... Its about understanding the virtues of both and being knowledgeable to know when and where to institute the best policies to address the particular situation. What works out in the country isn't going to work the same in the inner city...

I would agree with your last line. That's why we were never supposed to be democracy, but rather a Republic. That's why the Federal Government, isn't supposed to be dictating policy nation wide, except in those specific areas given to it in the constitution.

There should be no EPA. No NEA. No universal drug laws. No universal energy controls and so on. What works in New York, may not work in Wisconsin. What works in California, may not work in Texas. Each state is supposed to be governing themselves.

When you see conservatives oppose this and that Federal Policy, that even may seem like a good policy, this is why. It may in fact be a good policy, but it's not the Federal governments jurisdiction to control the states.

That said, no I disagree with you. I'd be hard pressed to find anything virtuous in the liberal agenda. When people say that there is virtue in left-wing politics, they usually mean they have good goals. A good goal, is not the same as a moral policy.

For example, we want everyone to be wealthy. Conservatives want that, and so do left-wingers. But the conservatives want everyone to win, by being frugal, economical, and industrious. They want to help people win by encouraging them to succeed. I want people to win, by going out and succeeding, by working hard, finding things they can do, and working towards their goals.

That's not what left-wingers want. Never has. From my high school days, until this day, the left-wing has wanted to help people win, by destroying those who are winning. How can we raise taxes on the rich. Increase regulations on the successful. By taking away their inheritances, by punishing those who earn the most.

There is nothing moral, or virtuous in that position. It's the position of greed and envy. OWS, was not about teaching people to save and invest.... it wasn't about working hard and succeeding.... it wasn't about creating new businesses, and achieving a goal.

OWS was all about "They have money. I want their money. If I can't have their money, then they should have that money either".

That's what it was all about.

What policy of the left, would you consider to be 'virtue"?

I think it's fascinating that anyone is still delusional enough to think that the regressive leftist of the world care about the poor in any way... Maybe some truly brainwashed idiots do, but the overwhelming majority just wants your money and is prepared to use any excuse imaginable to get it. As long as this reality is not recognized a lot of people will be banging their heads to the wall and wasting their time, proposing effective solutions to something the regressives could care less about.

So what about all the wealthy liberals? How are they trying to "get your money"? You're an idiot

 

[Markle]

Nope....I have been studying the left for over 20 years now........FDR screwed it up....with his tampering with the economy, intimidation of the Supreme Court and attacks on private business....he deepened the depression which should have ended in about 5 years..........and kept us in that depression till the end of the war when we still had our industry and our manpower......

Oh, Dick Tiny, you need to stop learning your history on hate radio. FDR saved capitalism from itself when the rest of the world gave up on it and shot its capitalists.

There was a depression in the 1920s....just as bad.....and the Republican in office did nothing....and it ended in about 2 years.........

Actually, the 1920 depression (Caused by the sudden collapse of War Spending after WWI) was minor. The 1929 Depression was so bad they stopped calling them "Depressions" after that.

As you know, the 1920 depression was minor because the Republicans did nothing and it recovered quickly on its own.

The 1929 Depression was extended by seven years due to the policies instituted by FDR.

 

[Norman]

I just told you a place that will let you do whatever you want... You can even bring all your guns. Might do you some good living in a place where all your brilliant ideas are an actual reality

And if we ever get intelligent enough to do things the conservative way, will you liberals move to another country? You know, a place where government takes care of everything like Cuba or North Korea?

I doubt it. In our country, if you don't like the way things are running, you try to change it.

I created a post last month asking people what they would think if we divided our country in half: liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. The results were very telling.

I was expecting people to chime in on how much better their side of the country would be and why. Yes, some conservatives did do that, but liberals didn't. Instead, liberals were angered at my post.

None could tell me why a total liberal side of our country would be better. The reason is they couldn't. The conservative side would be ten times better, except we'd have to build a wall to keep the liberals from coming over. Other than that, a great idea.

In the end, the only conclusion I could draw is that deep down inside, even liberals know their ideas are bad. They won't admit it of course, and they continue fighting conservatism even though they know it's the better social model.

The reason is because most people, myself included see virtue in both conservative and liberal agendas. I've been pinned in our discussions to the liberal wall but I actually have many conservative views and think our governemnt thrives with a good balance of both agendas. All Liberal would be Bad... All Conservative would be Bad... Its about understanding the virtues of both and being knowledgeable to know when and where to institute the best policies to address the particular situation. What works out in the country isn't going to work the same in the inner city...

I would agree with your last line. That's why we were never supposed to be democracy, but rather a Republic. That's why the Federal Government, isn't supposed to be dictating policy nation wide, except in those specific areas given to it in the constitution.

There should be no EPA. No NEA. No universal drug laws. No universal energy controls and so on. What works in New York, may not work in Wisconsin. What works in California, may not work in Texas. Each state is supposed to be governing themselves.

When you see conservatives oppose this and that Federal Policy, that even may seem like a good policy, this is why. It may in fact be a good policy, but it's not the Federal governments jurisdiction to control the states.

That said, no I disagree with you. I'd be hard pressed to find anything virtuous in the liberal agenda. When people say that there is virtue in left-wing politics, they usually mean they have good goals. A good goal, is not the same as a moral policy.

For example, we want everyone to be wealthy. Conservatives want that, and so do left-wingers. But the conservatives want everyone to win, by being frugal, economical, and industrious. They want to help people win by encouraging them to succeed. I want people to win, by going out and succeeding, by working hard, finding things they can do, and working towards their goals.

That's not what left-wingers want. Never has. From my high school days, until this day, the left-wing has wanted to help people win, by destroying those who are winning. How can we raise taxes on the rich. Increase regulations on the successful. By taking away their inheritances, by punishing those who earn the most.

There is nothing moral, or virtuous in that position. It's the position of greed and envy. OWS, was not about teaching people to save and invest.... it wasn't about working hard and succeeding.... it wasn't about creating new businesses, and achieving a goal.

OWS was all about "They have money. I want their money. If I can't have their money, then they should have that money either".

That's what it was all about.

What policy of the left, would you consider to be 'virtue"?

I think it's fascinating that anyone is still delusional enough to think that the regressive leftist of the world care about the poor in any way... Maybe some truly brainwashed idiots do, but the overwhelming majority just wants your money and is prepared to use any excuse imaginable to get it. As long as this reality is not recognized a lot of people will be banging their heads to the wall and wasting their time, proposing effective solutions to something the regressives could care less about.

So what about all the wealthy liberals? How are they trying to "get your money"? You're an idiot

What portion of the liberal regressive university social justice warriors are uber rich? I am talking in generalities you brainless fart.

Anyway, those rich limousin liberals are just virtue signaling. And possibly wanting others to pay for the charity they should be contributing to. Most of all they don't want any trouble with the state/statists so they just accept the religion like any true brainwashed idiot. Besides, often they are paid by tax money anyway in which case you have no point. There are myriad of reasons for becoming mentally regressed. The norm is parasitism though.

 

[Markle]

Now on that you and I disagree. Did the Germans force Greece to over spend? Did the Germans cook the Greek books to hide the deficits? Did the Germans have anything to do with Greece wanting to join the EU to begin with?

Umm... yes. Yes, and, uh, yes. The Germans made all these promises to the Greeks that if they just signed over their independence, all these good things would happen.

you see, if Greece hadn't joined the EU, it could have devalued its currency to make it more attractive to industry and investment. But the Euro is an anchor around their necks.

In short, they trustd the Germans, and the Germans screwed them.

Please show us your source and link for those allegations about Germany. Would you also show us where the citizens of Greece agreed to reduce their benefits in order to bring their spending in line with their expenses?

 

[Norman]

Now on that you and I disagree. Did the Germans force Greece to over spend? Did the Germans cook the Greek books to hide the deficits? Did the Germans have anything to do with Greece wanting to join the EU to begin with?

Umm... yes. Yes, and, uh, yes. The Germans made all these promises to the Greeks that if they just signed over their independence, all these good things would happen.

you see, if Greece hadn't joined the EU, it could have devalued its currency to make it more attractive to industry and investment. But the Euro is an anchor around their necks.

In short, they trustd the Germans, and the Germans screwed them.

Please show us your source and link for those allegations about Germany. Would you also show us where the citizens of Greece agreed to reduce their benefits in order to bring their spending in line with their expenses?

The allegation is ridiculous. Greece borrowed a bunch of money and is now blaming Germany for their own mistake.

They are also blaming the Europeans for not being able to get more debt money after completely failing to meet the demands of dismantling the socialism which is wrecking the economy, these people are ridiculous.

 

[Slade3200]

And if we ever get intelligent enough to do things the conservative way, will you liberals move to another country? You know, a place where government takes care of everything like Cuba or North Korea?

I doubt it. In our country, if you don't like the way things are running, you try to change it.

I created a post last month asking people what they would think if we divided our country in half: liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. The results were very telling.

I was expecting people to chime in on how much better their side of the country would be and why. Yes, some conservatives did do that, but liberals didn't. Instead, liberals were angered at my post.

None could tell me why a total liberal side of our country would be better. The reason is they couldn't. The conservative side would be ten times better, except we'd have to build a wall to keep the liberals from coming over. Other than that, a great idea.

In the end, the only conclusion I could draw is that deep down inside, even liberals know their ideas are bad. They won't admit it of course, and they continue fighting conservatism even though they know it's the better social model.

The reason is because most people, myself included see virtue in both conservative and liberal agendas. I've been pinned in our discussions to the liberal wall but I actually have many conservative views and think our governemnt thrives with a good balance of both agendas. All Liberal would be Bad... All Conservative would be Bad... Its about understanding the virtues of both and being knowledgeable to know when and where to institute the best policies to address the particular situation. What works out in the country isn't going to work the same in the inner city...

I would agree with your last line. That's why we were never supposed to be democracy, but rather a Republic. That's why the Federal Government, isn't supposed to be dictating policy nation wide, except in those specific areas given to it in the constitution.

There should be no EPA. No NEA. No universal drug laws. No universal energy controls and so on. What works in New York, may not work in Wisconsin. What works in California, may not work in Texas. Each state is supposed to be governing themselves.

When you see conservatives oppose this and that Federal Policy, that even may seem like a good policy, this is why. It may in fact be a good policy, but it's not the Federal governments jurisdiction to control the states.

That said, no I disagree with you. I'd be hard pressed to find anything virtuous in the liberal agenda. When people say that there is virtue in left-wing politics, they usually mean they have good goals. A good goal, is not the same as a moral policy.

For example, we want everyone to be wealthy. Conservatives want that, and so do left-wingers. But the conservatives want everyone to win, by being frugal, economical, and industrious. They want to help people win by encouraging them to succeed. I want people to win, by going out and succeeding, by working hard, finding things they can do, and working towards their goals.

That's not what left-wingers want. Never has. From my high school days, until this day, the left-wing has wanted to help people win, by destroying those who are winning. How can we raise taxes on the rich. Increase regulations on the successful. By taking away their inheritances, by punishing those who earn the most.

There is nothing moral, or virtuous in that position. It's the position of greed and envy. OWS, was not about teaching people to save and invest.... it wasn't about working hard and succeeding.... it wasn't about creating new businesses, and achieving a goal.

OWS was all about "They have money. I want their money. If I can't have their money, then they should have that money either".

That's what it was all about.

What policy of the left, would you consider to be 'virtue"?

I think it's fascinating that anyone is still delusional enough to think that the regressive leftist of the world care about the poor in any way... Maybe some truly brainwashed idiots do, but the overwhelming majority just wants your money and is prepared to use any excuse imaginable to get it. As long as this reality is not recognized a lot of people will be banging their heads to the wall and wasting their time, proposing effective solutions to something the regressives could care less about.

So what about all the wealthy liberals? How are they trying to "get your money"? You're an idiot

What portion of the liberal regressive university social justice warriors are uber rich? I am talking in generalities you brainless fart.

Anyway, those rich limousin liberals are just virtue signaling. And possibly wanting others to pay for the charity they should be contributing to. Most of all they don't want any trouble with the state/statists so they just accept the religion like any true brainwashed idiot. Besides, often they are paid by tax money anyway in which case you have no point. There are myriad of reasons for becoming mentally regressed. The norm is parasitism though.

Only 90% of Hollywood, if I must name a group... There are also many many business owners, especially from the .com boom that are very much liberal. Your point is weak and wrong, try something new

 

[Norman]

The reason is because most people, myself included see virtue in both conservative and liberal agendas. I've been pinned in our discussions to the liberal wall but I actually have many conservative views and think our governemnt thrives with a good balance of both agendas. All Liberal would be Bad... All Conservative would be Bad... Its about understanding the virtues of both and being knowledgeable to know when and where to institute the best policies to address the particular situation. What works out in the country isn't going to work the same in the inner city...

I would agree with your last line. That's why we were never supposed to be democracy, but rather a Republic. That's why the Federal Government, isn't supposed to be dictating policy nation wide, except in those specific areas given to it in the constitution.

There should be no EPA. No NEA. No universal drug laws. No universal energy controls and so on. What works in New York, may not work in Wisconsin. What works in California, may not work in Texas. Each state is supposed to be governing themselves.

When you see conservatives oppose this and that Federal Policy, that even may seem like a good policy, this is why. It may in fact be a good policy, but it's not the Federal governments jurisdiction to control the states.

That said, no I disagree with you. I'd be hard pressed to find anything virtuous in the liberal agenda. When people say that there is virtue in left-wing politics, they usually mean they have good goals. A good goal, is not the same as a moral policy.

For example, we want everyone to be wealthy. Conservatives want that, and so do left-wingers. But the conservatives want everyone to win, by being frugal, economical, and industrious. They want to help people win by encouraging them to succeed. I want people to win, by going out and succeeding, by working hard, finding things they can do, and working towards their goals.

That's not what left-wingers want. Never has. From my high school days, until this day, the left-wing has wanted to help people win, by destroying those who are winning. How can we raise taxes on the rich. Increase regulations on the successful. By taking away their inheritances, by punishing those who earn the most.

There is nothing moral, or virtuous in that position. It's the position of greed and envy. OWS, was not about teaching people to save and invest.... it wasn't about working hard and succeeding.... it wasn't about creating new businesses, and achieving a goal.

OWS was all about "They have money. I want their money. If I can't have their money, then they should have that money either".

That's what it was all about.

What policy of the left, would you consider to be 'virtue"?

I think it's fascinating that anyone is still delusional enough to think that the regressive leftist of the world care about the poor in any way... Maybe some truly brainwashed idiots do, but the overwhelming majority just wants your money and is prepared to use any excuse imaginable to get it. As long as this reality is not recognized a lot of people will be banging their heads to the wall and wasting their time, proposing effective solutions to something the regressives could care less about.

So what about all the wealthy liberals? How are they trying to "get your money"? You're an idiot

What portion of the liberal regressive university social justice warriors are uber rich? I am talking in generalities you brainless fart.

Anyway, those rich limousin liberals are just virtue signaling. And possibly wanting others to pay for the charity they should be contributing to. Most of all they don't want any trouble with the state/statists so they just accept the religion like any true brainwashed idiot. Besides, often they are paid by tax money anyway in which case you have no point. There are myriad of reasons for becoming mentally regressed. The norm is parasitism though.

Only 90% of Hollywood, if I must name a group... There are also many many business owners, especially from the .com boom that are very much liberal. Your point is weak and wrong, try something new

Do you have hard time understanding generalizations? 90 % of Hollywood is still nothing as far as the whole population is concerned. My point is correct, you just failed the statistics class. Also I highly doubt that 90 % of hollywood is rich to begin with.

 

[Markle]

This is why the term general welfare is used... A blind guy will never see the lights on the bay bridge but his tax dollars still went towards it, it's how it works. we vote and our elected officials decide how to tax and how to spend. I respect your pov as you are entitled to want to live a selfish kind of life. I completely disagree and am glad the majority is on my side enough to want to put energy and money into bettering our school systems. I hope we do more for it and think we will

It's selfish if I don't want to pay for somebody else's kid to go to college? Well if that's the case, then yes, I am selfish. I believe if you want better than other people, you should have to pay for it yourself.

You libs believe it's selfish to want to keep the money you work for, but it's not selfish if somebody else demands that money.

"A liberal believes if you create money, you are not entitled to it--but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

Take college away, haven't you stated that you dont support funding grade school with tax money?

No, what I said is that people with kids in the school should pay substantially more than those with no kids in school. Sure, I'm for paying nothing, but that will never happen.

As a sophisticated nation we need an educated population. The problem is how to do it economically. A total government system cannot accomplish those goals. You personally benefit from an educated society.

Yeah.......I keep hearing that, but nobody has been able to point out how I personally benefit.

We don't have a problem of not enough college students. We don't have a problem with not enough kids in high school.. One of the main reasons college is so expensive today is because WE DO have too many people in there. We don't have enough people willing to learn a skill and work with their hands, or otherwise learn a trade.

Okay, so we as a whole benefit from educated young adults. We can take that to other directions.

I think society benefits by me working for a living, but that doesn't mean I should expect them to fund my automobile, the maintenance, gasoline or insurance in order to get to work. I work because it mainly benefits me, and the residual benefits belong to society.

That's the same with education. The individual mostly benefits, and like having a job, society benefits secondly.

It benefits my property value if my neighbor takes care of his lawn, plants flowers or trees, trims his hedges....... but should taxpayers fund his lawn care equipment or flowers? No, because my neighbor invests his money to benefit himself mostly. I (as the neighbor) reap the benefits of his work and investments secondly.

So it's a weak argument to try and say that educated kids benefit society as if we were the only people that did. Education primarily benefits the individual, and that's why they should pay for their own education.

The cost of college has increased due to the government having made larger and larger loans easier and easier to obtain. Since the customer is willing to pay more and more, the tuitions continue to increase.

You can't see any benefits to you from an educated society. You're seeing the problem with that thinking every day. More of our kids are coming out of high school, IF THEY GRADUATE, with fewer and fewer abilities. More and more kids are going from high school to welfare, unemployment and poverty, thus costing you more and more money.

Obviously you're being facetious so I don't really take your foolish posts with a grain of salt. Keep up the good work!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you can't afford that tax, then you simply must move to someplace you can afford.

Hey ray you asshole. Follow your own advice from above.
If you cant afford (which evidently you cant from your whining)
to pay the real estate taxes to support schools, follow your own advice. Move. Mississippi has a sucko school system. Move there.

Btw ray. You aint "paying" your real estate tax. Your tenants are. Or are you such a pitiful landlord that you dont cover your PITI from your rents?

If my tenants are paying my real estate taxes, why are they not made out in their name instead of mine?

I never said I couldn't afford my property taxes, what I said is that it's plain robbery that people are able to take money from me to support their kids education. If you want kids, you should support them: you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and you should pay for their education. They are supposed to be YOUR responsibility--not your neighbors responsibility.

But I understand where you are coming from. Our society unfortunately has been brainwashed that parents are not responsible--the village is supposed to be. And as these liberals create more cradle-to-gravers like yourself, we distance ourselves further and further from a country that was the freest country in the entire world.

Of course, they pay your real estate taxes. They simply do not get the expense deduction. They also pay your mortgage, home insurance, the new roof etc., etc., etc.... With commercial leases, the tenant usually does pay taxes, insurance and maintenance. It is called a net lease. What you have with your residential tenants is a gross lease.

All costs are considered when coming up with a rental price. No matter what kind of lease you may have, that's the way it's calculated.

One of the reasons people rent (and growing all the time) is they don't want to deal with those costs. They pay the rent, and I deal with the costs. But that doesn't mean they are paying anything on my behalf.

My tenants can come home and just relax. That's part of the deal. I'm the one that mows the lawn, I'm the one that removes the snow, I'm the one who repairs the items in those units, I'm the one who has to sort through all the receipts and taxes, I'm the one that has to deal with the city and the problems they bring on.

I spend every vacation tending to this place while my tenants are free to use their time off of work for relaxation. Me? I haven't had a vacation in 25 years.

So it's not charity as you and others may suggest. I'm being paid to take on the burdens of home ownership that my tenants don't have to deal with. It's a trade-off no different than if you buy a basket of apples from your farmers market. You exchange money to others that did the work you didn't want to do.

Here is what I said, no different than your rant here.

Of course, they pay your real estate taxes. They simply do not get the expense deduction. They also pay your mortgage, home insurance, the new roof etc., etc., etc.... With commercial leases, the tenant usually does pay taxes, insurance and maintenance. It is called a net lease. What you have with your residential tenants is a gross lease.

You just had to make a word salad to say the same thing.

That you haven't had a vacation in 25 years sounds like a personal problem and poor planning.

On your death bed I bet you're going to be wishing you had taken fewer vacations, right?

No.....I made my choices and like choices I have made in the past, I have few regrets.

I enjoy being a landlord. I knew of the work involved before I bought these places. After all, I come from a family of landlords and with the exception of one year, have lived in multi-family dwellings my entire life.

If you want to get ahead in life you have to make sacrifices. It's why I get so pissed off when we get into discussions about jobs, and when I suggest to others to work more hours or take on a part-time job if they are not making ends meet, they act like I'm a ghoul or something. That's unheard of in America today; working more than 40 hours.

Even at my age I'm still working well more than 40 hours a week at my job plus all the time to run my business part-time. Right now I'm fixing up an apartment that was vacated by my last tenant at the beginning of March, and I've spent every weekend there since plus any time I can afford during the week if I get off of work at a decent hour.