Funnelling money back to the rich. Trump's policy.

[Ray From Cleveland]

Funny how people bring out the "it sounds more like socialism" card when it suits them, but when the govt starts paying for workers in private companies many don't care because it's a right wing govt doing it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with government paying private workers. Care to give me an example?

You seem to think kids should grow up with all the trappings of the unequal world. Why shouldn't poor kids get the same educations as the rich kids if both are being sent to state school? Why should a kid being brought up in poverty go to a run down no money school and a rich kid who has everything go to a wealthy state school? It makes no sense to me. It seems to encourage social injustice and lead to all the problems that shouldn't exist in a society like the USA.

Why should poor kids not get the same education as those kids from better income families? Because we don't have state schools. Most if not all of the funding comes from local taxes. As you said, property taxes are the most common.

What you're talking about is have everybody in the state pool their money together, and allow the state to divide it so that people in lower income areas have the same funding as those in upper income areas. Yes, that is socialism. Why should I (who lives in the suburbs) pay money for some inner-city kid that lives 200 miles from my city so that he or she can have the same education as those in my suburb?

Every city, every town, every community controls their own education. If you want better education, then pay up. Vote in levies and increase the funding of your own schools. It will cost you more money, but any community can have the same education system as those in better areas, it's just that you have to pay for it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Funny how people bring out the "it sounds more like socialism" card when it suits them, but when the govt starts paying for workers in private companies many don't care because it's a right wing govt doing it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with government paying private workers. Care to give me an example?

You seem to think kids should grow up with all the trappings of the unequal world. Why shouldn't poor kids get the same educations as the rich kids if both are being sent to state school? Why should a kid being brought up in poverty go to a run down no money school and a rich kid who has everything go to a wealthy state school? It makes no sense to me. It seems to encourage social injustice and lead to all the problems that shouldn't exist in a society like the USA.

Why should poor kids not get the same education as those kids from better income families? Because we don't have state schools. Most if not all of the funding comes from local taxes. As you said, property taxes are the most common.

What you're talking about is have everybody in the state pool their money together, and allow the state to divide it so that people in lower income areas have the same funding as those in upper income areas. Yes, that is socialism. Why should I (who lives in the suburbs) pay money for some inner-city kid that lives 200 miles from my city so that he or she can have the same education as those in my suburb?

Every city, every town, every community controls their own education. If you want better education, then pay up. Vote in levies and increase the funding of your own schools. It will cost you more money, but any community can have the same education system as those in better areas, it's just that you have to pay for it.

Govt paying private workers - Carrier. It happened a few days ago, Trump got his VP to give the company $8,500 per worker to stay.

Your reasoning for not having equal funding is because there isn't equal funding. That's ridiculous. Sometimes things SHOULD CHANGE to make them better. People complain things are bad, then refuse to change, as if suddenly things are going to get better.

You can call it socialism to pool money together, but this isn't uncommon in the USA. People pool together for the armed forces, the police, fire services, infrastructure among various things, and of course there's the spending people's money to give to rich people, and poor people, don't forget the welfare checks and food stamps.

Education is IMPORTANT for a society, and the US is showing countries how NOT to do it.

So I'm calling for change. Change the way education is funded to change the way America is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Funny how people bring out the "it sounds more like socialism" card when it suits them, but when the govt starts paying for workers in private companies many don't care because it's a right wing govt doing it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with government paying private workers. Care to give me an example?

You seem to think kids should grow up with all the trappings of the unequal world. Why shouldn't poor kids get the same educations as the rich kids if both are being sent to state school? Why should a kid being brought up in poverty go to a run down no money school and a rich kid who has everything go to a wealthy state school? It makes no sense to me. It seems to encourage social injustice and lead to all the problems that shouldn't exist in a society like the USA.

Why should poor kids not get the same education as those kids from better income families? Because we don't have state schools. Most if not all of the funding comes from local taxes. As you said, property taxes are the most common.

What you're talking about is have everybody in the state pool their money together, and allow the state to divide it so that people in lower income areas have the same funding as those in upper income areas. Yes, that is socialism. Why should I (who lives in the suburbs) pay money for some inner-city kid that lives 200 miles from my city so that he or she can have the same education as those in my suburb?

Every city, every town, every community controls their own education. If you want better education, then pay up. Vote in levies and increase the funding of your own schools. It will cost you more money, but any community can have the same education system as those in better areas, it's just that you have to pay for it.

Also had another thought. The DeVos women is pro-vouchers, surely vouchers are socialist in your view.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Funny how people bring out the "it sounds more like socialism" card when it suits them, but when the govt starts paying for workers in private companies many don't care because it's a right wing govt doing it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with government paying private workers. Care to give me an example?

You seem to think kids should grow up with all the trappings of the unequal world. Why shouldn't poor kids get the same educations as the rich kids if both are being sent to state school? Why should a kid being brought up in poverty go to a run down no money school and a rich kid who has everything go to a wealthy state school? It makes no sense to me. It seems to encourage social injustice and lead to all the problems that shouldn't exist in a society like the USA.

Why should poor kids not get the same education as those kids from better income families? Because we don't have state schools. Most if not all of the funding comes from local taxes. As you said, property taxes are the most common.

What you're talking about is have everybody in the state pool their money together, and allow the state to divide it so that people in lower income areas have the same funding as those in upper income areas. Yes, that is socialism. Why should I (who lives in the suburbs) pay money for some inner-city kid that lives 200 miles from my city so that he or she can have the same education as those in my suburb?

Every city, every town, every community controls their own education. If you want better education, then pay up. Vote in levies and increase the funding of your own schools. It will cost you more money, but any community can have the same education system as those in better areas, it's just that you have to pay for it.

Govt paying private workers - Carrier. It happened a few days ago, Trump got his VP to give the company $8,500 per worker to stay.

Your reasoning for not having equal funding is because there isn't equal funding. That's ridiculous. Sometimes things SHOULD CHANGE to make them better. People complain things are bad, then refuse to change, as if suddenly things are going to get better.

You can call it socialism to pool money together, but this isn't uncommon in the USA. People pool together for the armed forces, the police, fire services, infrastructure among various things, and of course there's the spending people's money to give to rich people, and poor people, don't forget the welfare checks and food stamps.

Education is IMPORTANT for a society, and the US is showing countries how NOT to do it.

So I'm calling for change. Change the way education is funded to change the way America is.

That's a lot of work to solve nothing. As I stated repeatedly, nobody spends more money on primary education in the world than the US. It's not a money problem.

Yes we have our police, fire, garbage pickup, road repair, but they are mostly funded the same way schools are, by the local taxpayers.

If you take a walk on your street tonight, and somebody shoves a gun in your chest demanding everything in your wallet, and you give him the hundred dollars in your wallet, and then next week he does the same thing, but instead of taking your one hundred dollars, he lets you keep twenty of those dollars, did he just give you twenty bucks?

Letting Carrier keep some of THEIR OWN MONEY is not government giving them anything, it's just government taking less from them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Funny how people bring out the "it sounds more like socialism" card when it suits them, but when the govt starts paying for workers in private companies many don't care because it's a right wing govt doing it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with government paying private workers. Care to give me an example?

You seem to think kids should grow up with all the trappings of the unequal world. Why shouldn't poor kids get the same educations as the rich kids if both are being sent to state school? Why should a kid being brought up in poverty go to a run down no money school and a rich kid who has everything go to a wealthy state school? It makes no sense to me. It seems to encourage social injustice and lead to all the problems that shouldn't exist in a society like the USA.

Why should poor kids not get the same education as those kids from better income families? Because we don't have state schools. Most if not all of the funding comes from local taxes. As you said, property taxes are the most common.

What you're talking about is have everybody in the state pool their money together, and allow the state to divide it so that people in lower income areas have the same funding as those in upper income areas. Yes, that is socialism. Why should I (who lives in the suburbs) pay money for some inner-city kid that lives 200 miles from my city so that he or she can have the same education as those in my suburb?

Every city, every town, every community controls their own education. If you want better education, then pay up. Vote in levies and increase the funding of your own schools. It will cost you more money, but any community can have the same education system as those in better areas, it's just that you have to pay for it.

Govt paying private workers - Carrier. It happened a few days ago, Trump got his VP to give the company $8,500 per worker to stay.

Your reasoning for not having equal funding is because there isn't equal funding. That's ridiculous. Sometimes things SHOULD CHANGE to make them better. People complain things are bad, then refuse to change, as if suddenly things are going to get better.

You can call it socialism to pool money together, but this isn't uncommon in the USA. People pool together for the armed forces, the police, fire services, infrastructure among various things, and of course there's the spending people's money to give to rich people, and poor people, don't forget the welfare checks and food stamps.

Education is IMPORTANT for a society, and the US is showing countries how NOT to do it.

So I'm calling for change. Change the way education is funded to change the way America is.

That's a lot of work to solve nothing. As I stated repeatedly, nobody spends more money on primary education in the world than the US. It's not a money problem.

Yes we have our police, fire, garbage pickup, road repair, but they are mostly funded the same way schools are, by the local taxpayers.

If you take a walk on your street tonight, and somebody shoves a gun in your chest demanding everything in your wallet, and you give him the hundred dollars in your wallet, and then next week he does the same thing, but instead of taking your one hundred dollars, he lets you keep twenty of those dollars, did he just give you twenty bucks?

Letting Carrier keep some of THEIR OWN MONEY is not government giving them anything, it's just government taking less from them.

I didn't say it was a money problem. However the way money is being spent IS A PROBLEM.
But there is more to it than just money, and I've spoken about those things.

You've used that analogy before, and I made a comment on it before. Here it is meaningless.


But your view on taxes is ridiculous.

Carrier uses the roads. It the stability. It's an international company so it might benefit from things like the World Bank, the US armed forces going around do their thing. It uses a lot of stuff and that stuff has to be paid for.
Once carrier has used those things it should be paying for them. If they use them, then don't pay the tax on those, then it isn't the US govt letting them keep their money, it's the US govt letting them use stuff for free when everyone else has to pay. Why? Why the hell should they get stuff for free? They don't need it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Funny how people bring out the "it sounds more like socialism" card when it suits them, but when the govt starts paying for workers in private companies many don't care because it's a right wing govt doing it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with government paying private workers. Care to give me an example?

You seem to think kids should grow up with all the trappings of the unequal world. Why shouldn't poor kids get the same educations as the rich kids if both are being sent to state school? Why should a kid being brought up in poverty go to a run down no money school and a rich kid who has everything go to a wealthy state school? It makes no sense to me. It seems to encourage social injustice and lead to all the problems that shouldn't exist in a society like the USA.

Why should poor kids not get the same education as those kids from better income families? Because we don't have state schools. Most if not all of the funding comes from local taxes. As you said, property taxes are the most common.

What you're talking about is have everybody in the state pool their money together, and allow the state to divide it so that people in lower income areas have the same funding as those in upper income areas. Yes, that is socialism. Why should I (who lives in the suburbs) pay money for some inner-city kid that lives 200 miles from my city so that he or she can have the same education as those in my suburb?

Every city, every town, every community controls their own education. If you want better education, then pay up. Vote in levies and increase the funding of your own schools. It will cost you more money, but any community can have the same education system as those in better areas, it's just that you have to pay for it.

Govt paying private workers - Carrier. It happened a few days ago, Trump got his VP to give the company $8,500 per worker to stay.

Your reasoning for not having equal funding is because there isn't equal funding. That's ridiculous. Sometimes things SHOULD CHANGE to make them better. People complain things are bad, then refuse to change, as if suddenly things are going to get better.

You can call it socialism to pool money together, but this isn't uncommon in the USA. People pool together for the armed forces, the police, fire services, infrastructure among various things, and of course there's the spending people's money to give to rich people, and poor people, don't forget the welfare checks and food stamps.

Education is IMPORTANT for a society, and the US is showing countries how NOT to do it.

So I'm calling for change. Change the way education is funded to change the way America is.

That's a lot of work to solve nothing. As I stated repeatedly, nobody spends more money on primary education in the world than the US. It's not a money problem.

Yes we have our police, fire, garbage pickup, road repair, but they are mostly funded the same way schools are, by the local taxpayers.

If you take a walk on your street tonight, and somebody shoves a gun in your chest demanding everything in your wallet, and you give him the hundred dollars in your wallet, and then next week he does the same thing, but instead of taking your one hundred dollars, he lets you keep twenty of those dollars, did he just give you twenty bucks?

Letting Carrier keep some of THEIR OWN MONEY is not government giving them anything, it's just government taking less from them.

I didn't say it was a money problem. However the way money is being spent IS A PROBLEM.
But there is more to it than just money, and I've spoken about those things.

You've used that analogy before, and I made a comment on it before. Here it is meaningless.


But your view on taxes is ridiculous.

Carrier uses the roads. It the stability. It's an international company so it might benefit from things like the World Bank, the US armed forces going around do their thing. It uses a lot of stuff and that stuff has to be paid for.
Once carrier has used those things it should be paying for them. If they use them, then don't pay the tax on those, then it isn't the US govt letting them keep their money, it's the US govt letting them use stuff for free when everyone else has to pay. Why? Why the hell should they get stuff for free? They don't need it.

Oh please, corporations and companies pay tenfold or more of what individual taxpayers pay, and those individuals use services and roads just as much. Then we can talk about those not working in our country that pay nothing but get much more from government than they pay if they pay anything at all.

The leftist way would have been to just let the division fold up and leave taking all those jobs with them, and then there would be no tax collection at all. The Republican way is to take a little bit of a hit, and keep Americans working and taxes coming in albeit a little less taxes than before.

The liberal strategy is a losing one where the conservative strategy is the winner. Maybe that's why there is such a strong push for change in this country.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Funny how people bring out the "it sounds more like socialism" card when it suits them, but when the govt starts paying for workers in private companies many don't care because it's a right wing govt doing it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with government paying private workers. Care to give me an example?

You seem to think kids should grow up with all the trappings of the unequal world. Why shouldn't poor kids get the same educations as the rich kids if both are being sent to state school? Why should a kid being brought up in poverty go to a run down no money school and a rich kid who has everything go to a wealthy state school? It makes no sense to me. It seems to encourage social injustice and lead to all the problems that shouldn't exist in a society like the USA.

Why should poor kids not get the same education as those kids from better income families? Because we don't have state schools. Most if not all of the funding comes from local taxes. As you said, property taxes are the most common.

What you're talking about is have everybody in the state pool their money together, and allow the state to divide it so that people in lower income areas have the same funding as those in upper income areas. Yes, that is socialism. Why should I (who lives in the suburbs) pay money for some inner-city kid that lives 200 miles from my city so that he or she can have the same education as those in my suburb?

Every city, every town, every community controls their own education. If you want better education, then pay up. Vote in levies and increase the funding of your own schools. It will cost you more money, but any community can have the same education system as those in better areas, it's just that you have to pay for it.

Govt paying private workers - Carrier. It happened a few days ago, Trump got his VP to give the company $8,500 per worker to stay.

Your reasoning for not having equal funding is because there isn't equal funding. That's ridiculous. Sometimes things SHOULD CHANGE to make them better. People complain things are bad, then refuse to change, as if suddenly things are going to get better.

You can call it socialism to pool money together, but this isn't uncommon in the USA. People pool together for the armed forces, the police, fire services, infrastructure among various things, and of course there's the spending people's money to give to rich people, and poor people, don't forget the welfare checks and food stamps.

Education is IMPORTANT for a society, and the US is showing countries how NOT to do it.

So I'm calling for change. Change the way education is funded to change the way America is.

That's a lot of work to solve nothing. As I stated repeatedly, nobody spends more money on primary education in the world than the US. It's not a money problem.

Yes we have our police, fire, garbage pickup, road repair, but they are mostly funded the same way schools are, by the local taxpayers.

If you take a walk on your street tonight, and somebody shoves a gun in your chest demanding everything in your wallet, and you give him the hundred dollars in your wallet, and then next week he does the same thing, but instead of taking your one hundred dollars, he lets you keep twenty of those dollars, did he just give you twenty bucks?

Letting Carrier keep some of THEIR OWN MONEY is not government giving them anything, it's just government taking less from them.

I didn't say it was a money problem. However the way money is being spent IS A PROBLEM.
But there is more to it than just money, and I've spoken about those things.

You've used that analogy before, and I made a comment on it before. Here it is meaningless.


But your view on taxes is ridiculous.

Carrier uses the roads. It the stability. It's an international company so it might benefit from things like the World Bank, the US armed forces going around do their thing. It uses a lot of stuff and that stuff has to be paid for.
Once carrier has used those things it should be paying for them. If they use them, then don't pay the tax on those, then it isn't the US govt letting them keep their money, it's the US govt letting them use stuff for free when everyone else has to pay. Why? Why the hell should they get stuff for free? They don't need it.

Oh please, corporations and companies pay tenfold or more of what individual taxpayers pay, and those individuals use services and roads just as much. Then we can talk about those not working in our country that pay nothing but get much more from government than they pay if they pay anything at all.

The leftist way would have been to just let the division fold up and leave taking all those jobs with them, and then there would be no tax collection at all. The Republican way is to take a little bit of a hit, and keep Americans working and taxes coming in albeit a little less taxes than before.

The liberal strategy is a losing one where the conservative strategy is the winner. Maybe that's why there is such a strong push for change in this country.

Of course they pay tenfold more. They use twenty fold of the stuff.

You think individuals use the roads just as much? Come on. Many large companies will have hundreds of trucks on the roads, things in planes all the time etc.

Yes, there are those in the country who get more from the govt and pay nothing, what's your point?

The "Republican way" huh? That led to the recession in 2008 that led to many people losing their jobs and then not being able to contribute.

"The liberal strategy"? There's only one huh? Oh, please. Yes, some liberals have ideas about the economy that are really bad, same as some conservatives. Labeling like you have done won't get us anywhere.

 

[numan]

Funny how people bring out the "it sounds more like socialism" card when it suits them, but when the govt starts paying for workers in private companies many don't care because it's a right wing govt doing it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with government paying private workers. Care to give me an example?

Govt paying private workers - Carrier. It happened a few days ago, Trump got his VP to give the company $8,500 per worker to stay.

An even better example is the way the Military-Industrial Conspiracy works.

Corrupt mega-companies funnel money and perks to the corrupt congressmen, Congress funnels trillions of dollars to war-profiteers, the war industry provides the jobs and salaries of the workers. There is no free market in this carnival of corruption and cronyism.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have no idea what you're talking about with government paying private workers. Care to give me an example?

Why should poor kids not get the same education as those kids from better income families? Because we don't have state schools. Most if not all of the funding comes from local taxes. As you said, property taxes are the most common.

What you're talking about is have everybody in the state pool their money together, and allow the state to divide it so that people in lower income areas have the same funding as those in upper income areas. Yes, that is socialism. Why should I (who lives in the suburbs) pay money for some inner-city kid that lives 200 miles from my city so that he or she can have the same education as those in my suburb?

Every city, every town, every community controls their own education. If you want better education, then pay up. Vote in levies and increase the funding of your own schools. It will cost you more money, but any community can have the same education system as those in better areas, it's just that you have to pay for it.

Govt paying private workers - Carrier. It happened a few days ago, Trump got his VP to give the company $8,500 per worker to stay.

Your reasoning for not having equal funding is because there isn't equal funding. That's ridiculous. Sometimes things SHOULD CHANGE to make them better. People complain things are bad, then refuse to change, as if suddenly things are going to get better.

You can call it socialism to pool money together, but this isn't uncommon in the USA. People pool together for the armed forces, the police, fire services, infrastructure among various things, and of course there's the spending people's money to give to rich people, and poor people, don't forget the welfare checks and food stamps.

Education is IMPORTANT for a society, and the US is showing countries how NOT to do it.

So I'm calling for change. Change the way education is funded to change the way America is.

That's a lot of work to solve nothing. As I stated repeatedly, nobody spends more money on primary education in the world than the US. It's not a money problem.

Yes we have our police, fire, garbage pickup, road repair, but they are mostly funded the same way schools are, by the local taxpayers.

If you take a walk on your street tonight, and somebody shoves a gun in your chest demanding everything in your wallet, and you give him the hundred dollars in your wallet, and then next week he does the same thing, but instead of taking your one hundred dollars, he lets you keep twenty of those dollars, did he just give you twenty bucks?

Letting Carrier keep some of THEIR OWN MONEY is not government giving them anything, it's just government taking less from them.

I didn't say it was a money problem. However the way money is being spent IS A PROBLEM.
But there is more to it than just money, and I've spoken about those things.

You've used that analogy before, and I made a comment on it before. Here it is meaningless.


But your view on taxes is ridiculous.

Carrier uses the roads. It the stability. It's an international company so it might benefit from things like the World Bank, the US armed forces going around do their thing. It uses a lot of stuff and that stuff has to be paid for.
Once carrier has used those things it should be paying for them. If they use them, then don't pay the tax on those, then it isn't the US govt letting them keep their money, it's the US govt letting them use stuff for free when everyone else has to pay. Why? Why the hell should they get stuff for free? They don't need it.

Oh please, corporations and companies pay tenfold or more of what individual taxpayers pay, and those individuals use services and roads just as much. Then we can talk about those not working in our country that pay nothing but get much more from government than they pay if they pay anything at all.

The leftist way would have been to just let the division fold up and leave taking all those jobs with them, and then there would be no tax collection at all. The Republican way is to take a little bit of a hit, and keep Americans working and taxes coming in albeit a little less taxes than before.

The liberal strategy is a losing one where the conservative strategy is the winner. Maybe that's why there is such a strong push for change in this country.

Of course they pay tenfold more. They use twenty fold of the stuff.

You think individuals use the roads just as much? Come on. Many large companies will have hundreds of trucks on the roads, things in planes all the time etc.

Yes, there are those in the country who get more from the govt and pay nothing, what's your point?

The "Republican way" huh? That led to the recession in 2008 that led to many people losing their jobs and then not being able to contribute.

"The liberal strategy"? There's only one huh? Oh, please. Yes, some liberals have ideas about the economy that are really bad, same as some conservatives. Labeling like you have done won't get us anywhere.

What labeling? I used your position to make the point. You would rather see that division shut down and Americans lose their job than to offer a tax break to the company to keep those people employed. It's not uncommon, the left here has been complaining about it since Trump struck the deal.

And how do they use twentyfold of stuff? The roads their employees use to get to work generate employee taxation. Trucks? You forget, I'm a tractor-trailer driver. I'll tell you about how much tax we pay for those roads. We have to pay an axle tax (more than two axles) we have to pay road taxes, we have to pay at the pump with diesel fuel taxes. If companies didn't contribute one dime, our taxes alone bring the cities and states out well ahead.

So what other things do they use twentyfold of? Do they use twentyfold of ambulances? Do they use twentyfold of welfare? Do they use twentyfold of food stamps? Twentyfold of police protection? What do they use twentyfold of?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Funny how people bring out the "it sounds more like socialism" card when it suits them, but when the govt starts paying for workers in private companies many don't care because it's a right wing govt doing it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with government paying private workers. Care to give me an example?

Govt paying private workers - Carrier. It happened a few days ago, Trump got his VP to give the company $8,500 per worker to stay.

An even better example is the way the Military-Industrial Conspiracy works.

Corrupt mega-companies funnel money and perks to the corrupt congressmen, Congress funnels trillions of dollars to war-profiteers, the war industry provides the jobs and salaries of the workers. There is no free market in this carnival of corruption and cronyism.

Yeah, the oil companies are making a fortune out of the lives of those who died in Iraq.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Govt paying private workers - Carrier. It happened a few days ago, Trump got his VP to give the company $8,500 per worker to stay.

Your reasoning for not having equal funding is because there isn't equal funding. That's ridiculous. Sometimes things SHOULD CHANGE to make them better. People complain things are bad, then refuse to change, as if suddenly things are going to get better.

You can call it socialism to pool money together, but this isn't uncommon in the USA. People pool together for the armed forces, the police, fire services, infrastructure among various things, and of course there's the spending people's money to give to rich people, and poor people, don't forget the welfare checks and food stamps.

Education is IMPORTANT for a society, and the US is showing countries how NOT to do it.

So I'm calling for change. Change the way education is funded to change the way America is.

That's a lot of work to solve nothing. As I stated repeatedly, nobody spends more money on primary education in the world than the US. It's not a money problem.

Yes we have our police, fire, garbage pickup, road repair, but they are mostly funded the same way schools are, by the local taxpayers.

If you take a walk on your street tonight, and somebody shoves a gun in your chest demanding everything in your wallet, and you give him the hundred dollars in your wallet, and then next week he does the same thing, but instead of taking your one hundred dollars, he lets you keep twenty of those dollars, did he just give you twenty bucks?

Letting Carrier keep some of THEIR OWN MONEY is not government giving them anything, it's just government taking less from them.

I didn't say it was a money problem. However the way money is being spent IS A PROBLEM.
But there is more to it than just money, and I've spoken about those things.

You've used that analogy before, and I made a comment on it before. Here it is meaningless.


But your view on taxes is ridiculous.

Carrier uses the roads. It the stability. It's an international company so it might benefit from things like the World Bank, the US armed forces going around do their thing. It uses a lot of stuff and that stuff has to be paid for.
Once carrier has used those things it should be paying for them. If they use them, then don't pay the tax on those, then it isn't the US govt letting them keep their money, it's the US govt letting them use stuff for free when everyone else has to pay. Why? Why the hell should they get stuff for free? They don't need it.

Oh please, corporations and companies pay tenfold or more of what individual taxpayers pay, and those individuals use services and roads just as much. Then we can talk about those not working in our country that pay nothing but get much more from government than they pay if they pay anything at all.

The leftist way would have been to just let the division fold up and leave taking all those jobs with them, and then there would be no tax collection at all. The Republican way is to take a little bit of a hit, and keep Americans working and taxes coming in albeit a little less taxes than before.

The liberal strategy is a losing one where the conservative strategy is the winner. Maybe that's why there is such a strong push for change in this country.

Of course they pay tenfold more. They use twenty fold of the stuff.

You think individuals use the roads just as much? Come on. Many large companies will have hundreds of trucks on the roads, things in planes all the time etc.

Yes, there are those in the country who get more from the govt and pay nothing, what's your point?

The "Republican way" huh? That led to the recession in 2008 that led to many people losing their jobs and then not being able to contribute.

"The liberal strategy"? There's only one huh? Oh, please. Yes, some liberals have ideas about the economy that are really bad, same as some conservatives. Labeling like you have done won't get us anywhere.

What labeling? I used your position to make the point. You would rather see that division shut down and Americans lose their job than to offer a tax break to the company to keep those people employed. It's not uncommon, the left here has been complaining about it since Trump struck the deal.

And how do they use twentyfold of stuff? The roads their employees use to get to work generate employee taxation. Trucks? You forget, I'm a tractor-trailer driver. I'll tell you about how much tax we pay for those roads. We have to pay an axle tax (more than two axles) we have to pay road taxes, we have to pay at the pump with diesel fuel taxes. If companies didn't contribute one dime, our taxes alone bring the cities and states out well ahead.

So what other things do they use twentyfold of? Do they use twentyfold of ambulances? Do they use twentyfold of welfare? Do they use twentyfold of food stamps? Twentyfold of police protection? What do they use twentyfold of?

Labeling as in pretending there's someone a "liberal strategy", like there are only two ways of thinking, either the right or the left, Republican or Democracy, and anything else just isn't worthy. It's not true.

Do you know why I would rather see that division shut down rather than those people keep their jobs? Because I believe in fair business practice, where companies compete against each other on a level playing field. I believe in capitalism, and that poor companies die, and better companies take over.

For all we know had they laid off all these workers, one of them could have started a business that competes against Carrier and then eventually takes over, whereas this way Carrier stays on top and might not be better.

The UK used to keep automobile companies afloat. And then as soon as they took the money away they died instantly because they were such bad businesses. If carrier is a good business then it will stay afloat playing the market.

Also, I've said this a million times, the US needs to be look at getting jobs that fit the wages. Right now you have Trump trying to keep LOW PAID jobs in the US but the workers demand to be paid more than they're worth. So the US needs BETTER EDUCATION so that the workers are able to do high tech jobs that pay the wages they demand.

Trump is trying to play a game that won't work, and never has worked, and is actually SOCIALIST. The UK did it because it had left wing socialist govts in place. The USSR did it. Paying people to do jobs that the people aren't worth.

It's not going to end well.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's a lot of work to solve nothing. As I stated repeatedly, nobody spends more money on primary education in the world than the US. It's not a money problem.

Yes we have our police, fire, garbage pickup, road repair, but they are mostly funded the same way schools are, by the local taxpayers.

If you take a walk on your street tonight, and somebody shoves a gun in your chest demanding everything in your wallet, and you give him the hundred dollars in your wallet, and then next week he does the same thing, but instead of taking your one hundred dollars, he lets you keep twenty of those dollars, did he just give you twenty bucks?

Letting Carrier keep some of THEIR OWN MONEY is not government giving them anything, it's just government taking less from them.

I didn't say it was a money problem. However the way money is being spent IS A PROBLEM.
But there is more to it than just money, and I've spoken about those things.

You've used that analogy before, and I made a comment on it before. Here it is meaningless.


But your view on taxes is ridiculous.

Carrier uses the roads. It the stability. It's an international company so it might benefit from things like the World Bank, the US armed forces going around do their thing. It uses a lot of stuff and that stuff has to be paid for.
Once carrier has used those things it should be paying for them. If they use them, then don't pay the tax on those, then it isn't the US govt letting them keep their money, it's the US govt letting them use stuff for free when everyone else has to pay. Why? Why the hell should they get stuff for free? They don't need it.

Oh please, corporations and companies pay tenfold or more of what individual taxpayers pay, and those individuals use services and roads just as much. Then we can talk about those not working in our country that pay nothing but get much more from government than they pay if they pay anything at all.

The leftist way would have been to just let the division fold up and leave taking all those jobs with them, and then there would be no tax collection at all. The Republican way is to take a little bit of a hit, and keep Americans working and taxes coming in albeit a little less taxes than before.

The liberal strategy is a losing one where the conservative strategy is the winner. Maybe that's why there is such a strong push for change in this country.

Of course they pay tenfold more. They use twenty fold of the stuff.

You think individuals use the roads just as much? Come on. Many large companies will have hundreds of trucks on the roads, things in planes all the time etc.

Yes, there are those in the country who get more from the govt and pay nothing, what's your point?

The "Republican way" huh? That led to the recession in 2008 that led to many people losing their jobs and then not being able to contribute.

"The liberal strategy"? There's only one huh? Oh, please. Yes, some liberals have ideas about the economy that are really bad, same as some conservatives. Labeling like you have done won't get us anywhere.

What labeling? I used your position to make the point. You would rather see that division shut down and Americans lose their job than to offer a tax break to the company to keep those people employed. It's not uncommon, the left here has been complaining about it since Trump struck the deal.

And how do they use twentyfold of stuff? The roads their employees use to get to work generate employee taxation. Trucks? You forget, I'm a tractor-trailer driver. I'll tell you about how much tax we pay for those roads. We have to pay an axle tax (more than two axles) we have to pay road taxes, we have to pay at the pump with diesel fuel taxes. If companies didn't contribute one dime, our taxes alone bring the cities and states out well ahead.

So what other things do they use twentyfold of? Do they use twentyfold of ambulances? Do they use twentyfold of welfare? Do they use twentyfold of food stamps? Twentyfold of police protection? What do they use twentyfold of?

Labeling as in pretending there's someone a "liberal strategy", like there are only two ways of thinking, either the right or the left, Republican or Democracy, and anything else just isn't worthy. It's not true.

Do you know why I would rather see that division shut down rather than those people keep their jobs? Because I believe in fair business practice, where companies compete against each other on a level playing field. I believe in capitalism, and that poor companies die, and better companies take over.

For all we know had they laid off all these workers, one of them could have started a business that competes against Carrier and then eventually takes over, whereas this way Carrier stays on top and might not be better.

The UK used to keep automobile companies afloat. And then as soon as they took the money away they died instantly because they were such bad businesses. If carrier is a good business then it will stay afloat playing the market.

Also, I've said this a million times, the US needs to be look at getting jobs that fit the wages. Right now you have Trump trying to keep LOW PAID jobs in the US but the workers demand to be paid more than they're worth. So the US needs BETTER EDUCATION so that the workers are able to do high tech jobs that pay the wages they demand.

Trump is trying to play a game that won't work, and never has worked, and is actually SOCIALIST. The UK did it because it had left wing socialist govts in place. The USSR did it. Paying people to do jobs that the people aren't worth.

It's not going to end well.

Don't worry about what the UK does. We are not the UK.

What you're saying is that you would rather these hundreds of Americans lose their job so that by a 1/1000 chance, one of their employees would start their own company and take battle with a well established wealthy international company is plain ridiculous. That's comparable to saying that with all these desperate laid off workers, one of them may buy a lottery ticket that might win them millions of dollars.

Furthermore you don't know what deal Trump offered them. Trump alone can't create special tax breaks for Carrier or anybody else for that matter. It would have to go through Congress and be level for at the very least all companies that produce what Carrier does. Whatever he did offer them, it must have been pretty convincing that he can get it passed through Congress.

The US does have education for better jobs. Unlike your precious UK, you have to pay for that education yourself since it is an investment that will reward you with better pay. Quit depending on government to put food on your table and replace the toilet paper roll in your bathroom. Do it yourself if that's what your really want.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't say it was a money problem. However the way money is being spent IS A PROBLEM.
But there is more to it than just money, and I've spoken about those things.

You've used that analogy before, and I made a comment on it before. Here it is meaningless.


But your view on taxes is ridiculous.

Carrier uses the roads. It the stability. It's an international company so it might benefit from things like the World Bank, the US armed forces going around do their thing. It uses a lot of stuff and that stuff has to be paid for.
Once carrier has used those things it should be paying for them. If they use them, then don't pay the tax on those, then it isn't the US govt letting them keep their money, it's the US govt letting them use stuff for free when everyone else has to pay. Why? Why the hell should they get stuff for free? They don't need it.

Oh please, corporations and companies pay tenfold or more of what individual taxpayers pay, and those individuals use services and roads just as much. Then we can talk about those not working in our country that pay nothing but get much more from government than they pay if they pay anything at all.

The leftist way would have been to just let the division fold up and leave taking all those jobs with them, and then there would be no tax collection at all. The Republican way is to take a little bit of a hit, and keep Americans working and taxes coming in albeit a little less taxes than before.

The liberal strategy is a losing one where the conservative strategy is the winner. Maybe that's why there is such a strong push for change in this country.

Of course they pay tenfold more. They use twenty fold of the stuff.

You think individuals use the roads just as much? Come on. Many large companies will have hundreds of trucks on the roads, things in planes all the time etc.

Yes, there are those in the country who get more from the govt and pay nothing, what's your point?

The "Republican way" huh? That led to the recession in 2008 that led to many people losing their jobs and then not being able to contribute.

"The liberal strategy"? There's only one huh? Oh, please. Yes, some liberals have ideas about the economy that are really bad, same as some conservatives. Labeling like you have done won't get us anywhere.

What labeling? I used your position to make the point. You would rather see that division shut down and Americans lose their job than to offer a tax break to the company to keep those people employed. It's not uncommon, the left here has been complaining about it since Trump struck the deal.

And how do they use twentyfold of stuff? The roads their employees use to get to work generate employee taxation. Trucks? You forget, I'm a tractor-trailer driver. I'll tell you about how much tax we pay for those roads. We have to pay an axle tax (more than two axles) we have to pay road taxes, we have to pay at the pump with diesel fuel taxes. If companies didn't contribute one dime, our taxes alone bring the cities and states out well ahead.

So what other things do they use twentyfold of? Do they use twentyfold of ambulances? Do they use twentyfold of welfare? Do they use twentyfold of food stamps? Twentyfold of police protection? What do they use twentyfold of?

Labeling as in pretending there's someone a "liberal strategy", like there are only two ways of thinking, either the right or the left, Republican or Democracy, and anything else just isn't worthy. It's not true.

Do you know why I would rather see that division shut down rather than those people keep their jobs? Because I believe in fair business practice, where companies compete against each other on a level playing field. I believe in capitalism, and that poor companies die, and better companies take over.

For all we know had they laid off all these workers, one of them could have started a business that competes against Carrier and then eventually takes over, whereas this way Carrier stays on top and might not be better.

The UK used to keep automobile companies afloat. And then as soon as they took the money away they died instantly because they were such bad businesses. If carrier is a good business then it will stay afloat playing the market.

Also, I've said this a million times, the US needs to be look at getting jobs that fit the wages. Right now you have Trump trying to keep LOW PAID jobs in the US but the workers demand to be paid more than they're worth. So the US needs BETTER EDUCATION so that the workers are able to do high tech jobs that pay the wages they demand.

Trump is trying to play a game that won't work, and never has worked, and is actually SOCIALIST. The UK did it because it had left wing socialist govts in place. The USSR did it. Paying people to do jobs that the people aren't worth.

It's not going to end well.

Don't worry about what the UK does. We are not the UK.

What you're saying is that you would rather these hundreds of Americans lose their job so that by a 1/1000 chance, one of their employees would start their own company and take battle with a well established wealthy international company is plain ridiculous. That's comparable to saying that with all these desperate laid off workers, one of them may buy a lottery ticket that might win them millions of dollars.

Furthermore you don't know what deal Trump offered them. Trump alone can't create special tax breaks for Carrier or anybody else for that matter. It would have to go through Congress and be level for at the very least all companies that produce what Carrier does. Whatever he did offer them, it must have been pretty convincing that he can get it passed through Congress.

The US does have education for better jobs. Unlike your precious UK, you have to pay for that education yourself since it is an investment that will reward you with better pay. Quit depending on government to put food on your table and replace the toilet paper roll in your bathroom. Do it yourself if that's what your really want.

You know, when Americans decide the rest of the world isn't worth looking at, you know you have real problems. They demand you prove something, then won't accept any of the evidence out there to show what actually happens when things do happen like this.

Yes, I would rather hundreds of Americans lose their jobs, rather than the state pay them to work for these companies. And, I have no doubt, that you would say the same thing had Bernie Sanders done exactly the same thing.

You'd be screaming "COMMUNIST" "SOCIALIST" at the top of your lungs.

No, Trump can't create this, he got his VP to do it. You do know that right? Trump didn't use federal money, he's not president.
He fucked over the voters of Indiana.

You really don't get the point that the US is unable to compete in the world because its national strategy is one of looking for shit jobs. This isn't about individuals going looking for better education, often by the time a kid has reached 18, their shit education rules them out of going looking for a better education, and they can't afford the $30,000 a year fees either. It's called elitism.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh please, corporations and companies pay tenfold or more of what individual taxpayers pay, and those individuals use services and roads just as much. Then we can talk about those not working in our country that pay nothing but get much more from government than they pay if they pay anything at all.

The leftist way would have been to just let the division fold up and leave taking all those jobs with them, and then there would be no tax collection at all. The Republican way is to take a little bit of a hit, and keep Americans working and taxes coming in albeit a little less taxes than before.

The liberal strategy is a losing one where the conservative strategy is the winner. Maybe that's why there is such a strong push for change in this country.

Of course they pay tenfold more. They use twenty fold of the stuff.

You think individuals use the roads just as much? Come on. Many large companies will have hundreds of trucks on the roads, things in planes all the time etc.

Yes, there are those in the country who get more from the govt and pay nothing, what's your point?

The "Republican way" huh? That led to the recession in 2008 that led to many people losing their jobs and then not being able to contribute.

"The liberal strategy"? There's only one huh? Oh, please. Yes, some liberals have ideas about the economy that are really bad, same as some conservatives. Labeling like you have done won't get us anywhere.

What labeling? I used your position to make the point. You would rather see that division shut down and Americans lose their job than to offer a tax break to the company to keep those people employed. It's not uncommon, the left here has been complaining about it since Trump struck the deal.

And how do they use twentyfold of stuff? The roads their employees use to get to work generate employee taxation. Trucks? You forget, I'm a tractor-trailer driver. I'll tell you about how much tax we pay for those roads. We have to pay an axle tax (more than two axles) we have to pay road taxes, we have to pay at the pump with diesel fuel taxes. If companies didn't contribute one dime, our taxes alone bring the cities and states out well ahead.

So what other things do they use twentyfold of? Do they use twentyfold of ambulances? Do they use twentyfold of welfare? Do they use twentyfold of food stamps? Twentyfold of police protection? What do they use twentyfold of?

Labeling as in pretending there's someone a "liberal strategy", like there are only two ways of thinking, either the right or the left, Republican or Democracy, and anything else just isn't worthy. It's not true.

Do you know why I would rather see that division shut down rather than those people keep their jobs? Because I believe in fair business practice, where companies compete against each other on a level playing field. I believe in capitalism, and that poor companies die, and better companies take over.

For all we know had they laid off all these workers, one of them could have started a business that competes against Carrier and then eventually takes over, whereas this way Carrier stays on top and might not be better.

The UK used to keep automobile companies afloat. And then as soon as they took the money away they died instantly because they were such bad businesses. If carrier is a good business then it will stay afloat playing the market.

Also, I've said this a million times, the US needs to be look at getting jobs that fit the wages. Right now you have Trump trying to keep LOW PAID jobs in the US but the workers demand to be paid more than they're worth. So the US needs BETTER EDUCATION so that the workers are able to do high tech jobs that pay the wages they demand.

Trump is trying to play a game that won't work, and never has worked, and is actually SOCIALIST. The UK did it because it had left wing socialist govts in place. The USSR did it. Paying people to do jobs that the people aren't worth.

It's not going to end well.

Don't worry about what the UK does. We are not the UK.

What you're saying is that you would rather these hundreds of Americans lose their job so that by a 1/1000 chance, one of their employees would start their own company and take battle with a well established wealthy international company is plain ridiculous. That's comparable to saying that with all these desperate laid off workers, one of them may buy a lottery ticket that might win them millions of dollars.

Furthermore you don't know what deal Trump offered them. Trump alone can't create special tax breaks for Carrier or anybody else for that matter. It would have to go through Congress and be level for at the very least all companies that produce what Carrier does. Whatever he did offer them, it must have been pretty convincing that he can get it passed through Congress.

The US does have education for better jobs. Unlike your precious UK, you have to pay for that education yourself since it is an investment that will reward you with better pay. Quit depending on government to put food on your table and replace the toilet paper roll in your bathroom. Do it yourself if that's what your really want.

You know, when Americans decide the rest of the world isn't worth looking at, you know you have real problems. They demand you prove something, then won't accept any of the evidence out there to show what actually happens when things do happen like this.

Yes, I would rather hundreds of Americans lose their jobs, rather than the state pay them to work for these companies. And, I have no doubt, that you would say the same thing had Bernie Sanders done exactly the same thing.

You'd be screaming "COMMUNIST" "SOCIALIST" at the top of your lungs.

No, Trump can't create this, he got his VP to do it. You do know that right? Trump didn't use federal money, he's not president.
He fucked over the voters of Indiana.

You really don't get the point that the US is unable to compete in the world because its national strategy is one of looking for shit jobs. This isn't about individuals going looking for better education, often by the time a kid has reached 18, their shit education rules them out of going looking for a better education, and they can't afford the $30,000 a year fees either. It's called elitism.

Then I guess my niece and nephew are products of elitism since both are college graduates, and they are repaying their loans along with my sister who will also be repaying her share until past retirement.

And WTF do you get the state is paying these workers? Show me how the state writes a check to Carrier for such purposes. You leftists think that all earned money belongs to government, and what they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you. It's why I used the same scenarios about you getting robbed by a street thug or neighbor. IT'S YOUR MONEY. And when somebody allows you to keep more of your own money, they aren't paying you anything.

Your view is very typical of the left. You would rather see failure than success when it comes to employment in this country. You would rather complain how companies are greedy when they are only trying to escape your very expensive regulations and taxes by leaving. Instead of trying to do something to keep them here, just let them go, and then blame Republicans somehow.

As for what education costs, blame your liberal run colleges. Profit colleges have over a 20% profit ever year. My goodness, if they would only allow us to invest in these schools, we could all retire happy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course they pay tenfold more. They use twenty fold of the stuff.

You think individuals use the roads just as much? Come on. Many large companies will have hundreds of trucks on the roads, things in planes all the time etc.

Yes, there are those in the country who get more from the govt and pay nothing, what's your point?

The "Republican way" huh? That led to the recession in 2008 that led to many people losing their jobs and then not being able to contribute.

"The liberal strategy"? There's only one huh? Oh, please. Yes, some liberals have ideas about the economy that are really bad, same as some conservatives. Labeling like you have done won't get us anywhere.

What labeling? I used your position to make the point. You would rather see that division shut down and Americans lose their job than to offer a tax break to the company to keep those people employed. It's not uncommon, the left here has been complaining about it since Trump struck the deal.

And how do they use twentyfold of stuff? The roads their employees use to get to work generate employee taxation. Trucks? You forget, I'm a tractor-trailer driver. I'll tell you about how much tax we pay for those roads. We have to pay an axle tax (more than two axles) we have to pay road taxes, we have to pay at the pump with diesel fuel taxes. If companies didn't contribute one dime, our taxes alone bring the cities and states out well ahead.

So what other things do they use twentyfold of? Do they use twentyfold of ambulances? Do they use twentyfold of welfare? Do they use twentyfold of food stamps? Twentyfold of police protection? What do they use twentyfold of?

Labeling as in pretending there's someone a "liberal strategy", like there are only two ways of thinking, either the right or the left, Republican or Democracy, and anything else just isn't worthy. It's not true.

Do you know why I would rather see that division shut down rather than those people keep their jobs? Because I believe in fair business practice, where companies compete against each other on a level playing field. I believe in capitalism, and that poor companies die, and better companies take over.

For all we know had they laid off all these workers, one of them could have started a business that competes against Carrier and then eventually takes over, whereas this way Carrier stays on top and might not be better.

The UK used to keep automobile companies afloat. And then as soon as they took the money away they died instantly because they were such bad businesses. If carrier is a good business then it will stay afloat playing the market.

Also, I've said this a million times, the US needs to be look at getting jobs that fit the wages. Right now you have Trump trying to keep LOW PAID jobs in the US but the workers demand to be paid more than they're worth. So the US needs BETTER EDUCATION so that the workers are able to do high tech jobs that pay the wages they demand.

Trump is trying to play a game that won't work, and never has worked, and is actually SOCIALIST. The UK did it because it had left wing socialist govts in place. The USSR did it. Paying people to do jobs that the people aren't worth.

It's not going to end well.

Don't worry about what the UK does. We are not the UK.

What you're saying is that you would rather these hundreds of Americans lose their job so that by a 1/1000 chance, one of their employees would start their own company and take battle with a well established wealthy international company is plain ridiculous. That's comparable to saying that with all these desperate laid off workers, one of them may buy a lottery ticket that might win them millions of dollars.

Furthermore you don't know what deal Trump offered them. Trump alone can't create special tax breaks for Carrier or anybody else for that matter. It would have to go through Congress and be level for at the very least all companies that produce what Carrier does. Whatever he did offer them, it must have been pretty convincing that he can get it passed through Congress.

The US does have education for better jobs. Unlike your precious UK, you have to pay for that education yourself since it is an investment that will reward you with better pay. Quit depending on government to put food on your table and replace the toilet paper roll in your bathroom. Do it yourself if that's what your really want.

You know, when Americans decide the rest of the world isn't worth looking at, you know you have real problems. They demand you prove something, then won't accept any of the evidence out there to show what actually happens when things do happen like this.

Yes, I would rather hundreds of Americans lose their jobs, rather than the state pay them to work for these companies. And, I have no doubt, that you would say the same thing had Bernie Sanders done exactly the same thing.

You'd be screaming "COMMUNIST" "SOCIALIST" at the top of your lungs.

No, Trump can't create this, he got his VP to do it. You do know that right? Trump didn't use federal money, he's not president.
He fucked over the voters of Indiana.

You really don't get the point that the US is unable to compete in the world because its national strategy is one of looking for shit jobs. This isn't about individuals going looking for better education, often by the time a kid has reached 18, their shit education rules them out of going looking for a better education, and they can't afford the $30,000 a year fees either. It's called elitism.

Then I guess my niece and nephew are products of elitism since both are college graduates, and they are repaying their loans along with my sister who will also be repaying her share until past retirement.

And WTF do you get the state is paying these workers? Show me how the state writes a check to Carrier for such purposes. You leftists think that all earned money belongs to government, and what they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you. It's why I used the same scenarios about you getting robbed by a street thug or neighbor. IT'S YOUR MONEY. And when somebody allows you to keep more of your own money, they aren't paying you anything.

Your view is very typical of the left. You would rather see failure than success when it comes to employment in this country. You would rather complain how companies are greedy when they are only trying to escape your very expensive regulations and taxes by leaving. Instead of trying to do something to keep them here, just let them go, and then blame Republicans somehow.

As for what education costs, blame your liberal run colleges. Profit colleges have over a 20% profit ever year. My goodness, if they would only allow us to invest in these schools, we could all retire happy.

Elitism?

I wouldn't know. However they've probably had a chance that a lot of others would not have had.

However kids in poverty are less likely to finish High School.

http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/indicator/2013/05/poverty-dropouts.aspx

"In 2009, poor (bottom 20 percent of all family incomes) students were five times more likely to drop out of high school than high-income (top 20 percent of all family incomes) students"

Now, there are many reasons for this, however it has a lasting impact on poverty levels and the cycle of poverty. You don't finish High School, you don't go to college.

However the issue here is that education is made so the rich have many more advantages than the poor. Without social mobility, with the rich deliberately keeping down the poor, it causes problems, and those problems are seeping out. Like I said with the UK, they try and get all students to do well, the US doesn't. It's causing problems all around.

There's no disguising the fact that countries like Germany produce quality goods like BMWs, Mercedes, while the car industry in the US is going downhill.

Real GDP per capita in the US is slowing down and will probably be going backwards at some point.

US Real GDP Per Capita by Year

2014-2014 GDP growth was $256

1976-1977 GDP growth was $885

The chart is getting more horizontal every decade.

Okay, if the state of Indiana is paying $8,500 per worker to stay in Indiana, then clearly the state is paying $8,500 per work, right? I mean, Trump's deal appears to be the company saying "we can't afford to pay the wages that the US workers want and remain competitive" so Trump said "okay, we'll pay you $7 million to keep some of those workers here", which amounts to the govt paying companies part of the wage of the workers who are staying.

My view is not typical of the left, it's typical of the RIGHT. The right is the wing that is more pro-capitalist, and the left more socialist. Capitalism is "let them die". When the recession happened, it was the right screaming for companies to be left to die.

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Wikipedia

"Skepticism regarding the plan occurred early on in the House. Many members of Congress, including the House of Representatives, did not support the plan initially, mainly conservative free-market Republicans and liberal anti-corporate Democrats."

So, many were conservative free-market Republicans who opposed the bailout of banks and the auto-industry among others. Some were also Democrats. But it is mostly identified with the RIGHT not the left.

But yes, I would rather failing companies be allowed to fail, rather than being propped up by the government. Why you'd prefer failing companies to be propped up by the govt is beyond me.

But again, my view is to change the way the US functions. I keep talking about the need to change the industries in the US by changing education, and every time you come out with "but you can't do that, it's all about individuals doing their own things" and then you prefer to see the state spend loads of money propping up businesses. Your view is leading to the US going downhill massively.

I don't like university costs. I've been to universities in various countries. You go to a UK university and their main soccer field is literally a piece of grass with lines painted on it, and capacity for about 200 people to watch. In the US you have massive stadia with massive capacity and lots of workers being paid.

compared to

In the US you have golf carts, excellent facilities that are more often than not unnecessary. In the UK or in other European countries universities do the job they're designed to do, educate the students. I'm no fan of the spending that goes on in US universities and would like to see universities put more money into education rather than unnecessarily facilities.