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

[Markle]

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?

I see you too are being facetious. Keep up the good work.

Please share with us who runs the educational system in the cities of our nation's worst schools?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Damn your hopeless... You want a significant group? How about the majority of voters in the US over the past two elections

 

[Andylusion]

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...

Money flowing, doesn't do anything. Just having it move around, in and of itself, is irrelevant, if not harmful.

I own a car. You buy the car from me for $200. I buy it back for $200, and you buy it again for $200, and we do this thousand times in a week.

That's a ton of money cycling around really fast, and yet are either of us better off? No. How much wealth in that system, is produced? None.

Wealth is only produced, when people are creating goods to sell, not just moving existing goods around.

When a poor person is producing a product, and get's money from the sale of the production they created, now money is moving around, and there is no more wealth after the interaction, than before.

When you take money, produced by someone else, and simply give it to a poor person who has created no value.... How much wealth is produced in that action? Zero.

But wealth is consumed. Whatever the poor person buys, is consumed.

Capitalism, where people only get money by producing value, causes society as a whole to benefit.

Socialism, where people get money for doing nothing, causes society as a whole to decline.

This is why you can have Cuba in the 1950s, have a standard of living on par with that of the American middle class, and today have a society that has a standard of living of the 1700s.

 

[Norman]

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!

Gender studies degrees are proof enough that the government educational system is failing

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.

Damn your hopeless... You want a significant group? How about the majority of voters in the US over the past two elections

If by hopeless you mean a person that utterly destroyed your non-argument to which you did not respond to, you may have a point. I bet you are one of those parasites yourself as no one productive could make arguments this worthless.

 

[Norman]

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...

Money flowing, doesn't do anything. Just having it move around, in and of itself, is irrelevant, if not harmful.

I own a car. You buy the car from me for $200. I buy it back for $200, and you buy it again for $200, and we do this thousand times in a week.

That's a ton of money cycling around really fast, and yet are either of us better off? No. How much wealth in that system, is produced? None.

Wealth is only produced, when people are creating goods to sell, not just moving existing goods around.

When a poor person is producing a product, and get's money from the sale of the production they created, now money is moving around, and there is no more wealth after the interaction, than before.

When you take money, produced by someone else, and simply give it to a poor person who has created no value.... How much wealth is produced in that action? Zero.

But wealth is consumed. Whatever the poor person buys, is consumed.

Capitalism, where people only get money by producing value, causes society as a whole to benefit.

Socialism, where people get money for doing nothing, causes society as a whole to decline.

This is why you can have Cuba in the 1950s, have a standard of living on par with that of the American middle class, and today have a society that has a standard of living of the 1700s.

It's production that matters, not circulation of money. Remember, circulation of money is not even counted if it's not paid for newly made products. In other words, money can't even circulate if there are no products/services being made!

Of course, the regressives just use the phrase to give them an excuse to take your money. As usual, they have zero economic understanding.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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!

Okay, so government made loans easier to get, and what did that do? That put more people in college which increased the cost. Like I said, supply and demand.

As for kids graduating and going into poverty, what does that have to do with college? There are still plenty of jobs out there that kids today just won't do. If they end up on welfare, it's because welfare is so inviting. Nobody takes care of their poor better than the US. It has nothing to do with education because we have more educated people than ever in the US:

 

[Markle]

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.

You're a mere child at your age. I too was working 60-70 hours a week at that age. The prime of life.

The only time I ever worked part-time was when I was in high school. I worked as many hours I could in college and loaded up with two or more jobs in the Summer.

The past 40+ years I worked as a Realtor. I LOVE this profession and never worked fewer than 60 hours a week. I am also a licensed real estate instructor and work part-time at the only real estate school in our area for an old close friend. I also teach for the Florida Assn. of Realtors, the National Association of Realtors, conduct my own seminars which I write, I'm also a professional speaker and am on a number of speaker bureaus. I too owned a number of rental properties, most were single family dwellings in nice areas. During the real estate bubble, I sold everything which I advised my clients to do as well. I hate managing and maintaining properties so I placed them all with a property management company.

So I worked really long hours doing what I LOVE. BUT, I also took nice vacations. I had a licensed assistant and they held down the fort while I was gone. I recharged my batteries. Sometimes it was to a convention or a speaking engagement where my travel and basic expenses and then I'd pay for another week or two. Sometimes I'd go to a bike rally, Sturgis a few times, Daytona and several NHRA events and several NASCAR events. I've been semi-retired for a number of years. I sold my last bike some years back and have just bought a new one. I have cancer and figure I'll do what I love for however long.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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...

Very well, so what liberal agenda do you speak of that has no negative ramifications that are good ideas? I'd like to know of some.

It's been my observation that when liberals propose an idea, it's at a cost to other people.

In many cases, the majority gets the shaft while the minority cleans up. Take Commie Care for instance. Was that a good idea? Sure.......now some people can get healthcare, but at what cost?

Personally speaking, I lost my employer coverage as millions of others have. And the people that can easily afford insurance--theirs is going up. Employers are saddled with a new expense be it providing new healthcare coverage or paying a fine. Speaking of fines, if you can't afford to buy insurance, the government will take some of your hard earned money.

Before Commie Care, 1/7th of our population was not insured, so the liberal policy was to destroy the entire system and screw the other 6/7th of our society. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Markle]

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!

Okay, so government made loans easier to get, and what did that do? That put more people in college which increased the cost. Like I said, supply and demand.

As for kids graduating and going into poverty, what does that have to do with college? There are still plenty of jobs out there that kids today just won't do. If they end up on welfare, it's because welfare is so inviting. Nobody takes care of their poor better than the US. It has nothing to do with education because we have more educated people than ever in the US:

View attachment 72651


View attachment 72652

Still lower than in 1970 meaning far more uneducated kids.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You're a mere child at your age. I too was working 60-70 hours a week at that age. The prime of life.

The only time I ever worked part-time was when I was in high school. I worked as many hours I could in college and loaded up with two or more jobs in the Summer.

The past 40+ years I worked as a Realtor. I LOVE this profession and never worked fewer than 60 hours a week. I am also a licensed real estate instructor and work part-time at the only real estate school in our area for an old close friend. I also teach for the Florida Assn. of Realtors, the National Association of Realtors, conduct my own seminars which I write, I'm also a professional speaker and am on a number of speaker bureaus. I too owned a number of rental properties, most were single family dwellings in nice areas. During the real estate bubble, I sold everything which I advised my clients to do as well. I hate managing and maintaining properties so I placed them all with a property management company.

So I worked really long hours doing what I LOVE. BUT, I also took nice vacations. I had a licensed assistant and they held down the fort while I was gone. I recharged my batteries. Sometimes it was to a convention or a speaking engagement where my travel and basic expenses and then I'd pay for another week or two. Sometimes I'd go to a bike rally, Sturgis a few times, Daytona and several NHRA events and several NASCAR events. I've been semi-retired for a number of years. I sold my last bike some years back and have just bought a new one. I have cancer and figure I'll do what I love for however long.

Well I certainly hope you beat it. There is nothing worse than losing your health. I'm in bad health myself. It's a fight every day to go to work.

My father, now 84 years old, was diagnosed with cancer about seven years ago or so. He's still here helping around the property and is very productive. It stopped spreading and even if it didn't, there is little they would be able to do for him because his cancers are so rare.

"You never really lose until you quit trying."
Mike Ditka

 

[Centinel]

why do the left wing regressives insist that college should be free...or rather, that the money for people's education should be extracted at gunpoint from other taxpayers....many of whom will not go to college?

Why don't they insist that those people attending college on the taxpayers expense, pay back the money they get......?

Why is that such a hard concept for bernie and hilary and the rest of the left wing regressives to get?

When the states created their union, they delegated to it a very small set of legislative powers. These are listed in Art I, section 8. If one looks at this list, one will not find any power to provide free college.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

In reality, regardless of your intention, the left-wing ideology is exactly the ideology that allows the wealthy and powerful to take over the world.

You use language about destroying winners and the successful through taxation and regulation but has anybody really be destroyed?

Yes, and there are dozens of examples. If not hundreds. A quick one would be UPN. United Paramount Network. The FCC in the 1940s, created 50 plus white spaces for broadcast TV channels, and for the vast majority of the last 70 years, how many broadcast TV channels do we have? Three for the most part. ABC, CBS, and NBC, and Fox in 1985. How is it that the FCC specifically created 50 spaces in the spectrum specifically for broadcast TV, and yet only 4 channels have come into being for the majority of 70 years?

Answer.... the regulations and controls that you claim prevent the rich from taking over, allowed them to take over, and maintain control.

UPN is a perfect example. The FCC prevented UPN from using the the regular VHF band, and forced them to use UHF, which few TVs even had UHF. As a result UPN was slowly forced out of the market until 2006, when it closed, only 11 years after starting in 1995.

Competitors petition keeps new UPN TV station off the air

Old articles document this all over the place, if you are interested in looking it up. I could tell you the exact same story with AT&T and the Cell Phone spectrum, which AT&T used to shut out competitors with the FCC rules.

You can also look at the car market in the 1950 verses the car market in the mid 1980s. In the 1950s, there was Hudson, Nash, Studebaker, Packard, and a few others besides the big three. But then the regulations started hitting. Clean Air Act of 1962, the rise of Ralph Nader who made up false claims against the car companies.

Ironic given Nader attacked the big three car companies, but regardless of his intention, the result was that all the independent competition was pushed out of the market. Small car companies, didn't have the resources to meet the regulations, or pay for lobbying, that the big three did. And by the way, the whole reason they needed lobbying was because of the regulations.

By the 1980s, all the smaller car companies were gone, and only Ford, GM, and Chrysler were left, protected by regulations and controls, from any competition. Completely the opposite of Naders goals in attacking the Big Three.

The left wing, and people like you don't seem to grasp in this, is that ALL regulation, inherently benefit the wealthy. They all do. No matter how much you think those regulations are there to prevent the rich from controlling the world, the reality is, those regulations are exactly what allows the rich to control the world.

No regulation is going to target a massive company, and doom it to destruction. It would be political suicide for the politicians to be the direct cause of Ford Motor Company to close. So no regulation is going to actually harm the super rich. But, those regulations still cost tons of money to adhere to. As a result, smaller companies without political clout, who don't have the massive resources and money to meet those regulations, will slowly be pushed out of the market. Happens all the time.

It's the same as the CEO of McDonald's supporting the $15/hour minimum wage. The CEO knows that McDonald's has the money to replace cashiers with Kiosks (the real minimum wage is always $0). They have the money to pay higher wages to the fewer employees left.

Who doesn't? The smaller chains, and independent shops. They don't have the money to pay $15/hour, or replace people with expensive Kiosks. They would be forced out of the market, while the executives at McDonald's take over larger and large amounts of the market, making trillions of dollars. Instead of sticking it to the rich, you have stuck them with more money.

This is just how it is.

 

[Andylusion]

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

Wealthy liberals get your money by force. Wealthy Capitalists get your money by choice. Exxon doesn't take my money from my check. Exxon gets my money, because they provide fuel, that I want, and need, and has value to me. It's a choice.

A Wealthy liberal, gets my money by supporting left-wing causes, in "green-energy" grants. Or by Ethanol mandates. Or by "providing free internet to school students".

World's largest solar plant applying for federal grant to pay off federal loan | Fox News

A $1.6 Billion dollar 'loan', for a solar plant, that is only producing 1/4 the amount of power claimed (blaming it on the weather what a shock), and now asking for a half billion dollar bailout by the Federal Government.

That's how wealthy liberals get your money, by forcing it from you, through the power of the government.

Take Warren Buffet. He invested BILLIONS into BNSF train company. Random? You think he picked it by accident? Not so much.....

Warren Buffett Makes a $44 Billion (!) Bet on Trains, Buys BNSF

BNSF is a freight company, but many Amtrak routes use BNSF rails, and maybe one of Buffet's plans is to expand into passenger rail? This could certainly be a growth sector if oil becomes more expensive and low-carbon technologies are given a push because of concerns about global warming.
​

So BNSF is getting tons of revenue, from Amtrak operating on their rails.

Amtrak has gotten $70 Billion dollars from the government since it's creation. And Warren Buffet thanks you for your contribution. He'll admire his dividend checks in your honor.

That's how Wealthy Liberals get your money my friend.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

And Hover. Hover was a flaming left-winger himself. He might have run as Republican, but he was a left-winger. I'm reading about Calvin Coolidge, and he talks about fighting with Hoover to cut spending during the early 1920s. Which is why the 1920s are called the Roaring 20s.

As soon as Hoover came to power, he started blowing money all over the place, and the result was the Great Depression. That idiot FDR, followed all of the same bad policies Hoover enacted that caused the problem to begin with. It's no wonder FDR dragged out the recession into a depression for over a decade.

Left-wing policies DO NOT WORK, no matter who the idiot is that tries them.