Everyone making less then 25,000 per year

[Conservative65]

Anytime you have a capitalist system there will ALWAYS be those at the bottom of the triangle. Those at the top need to quit being assholes and realize that unless they do something to protect those at the bottom, they will disappear and then guess what... those at the middle will be at the bottom... and when those are gone... the next ones will be at the bottom... and so on.

The rich will be limited to gated communities within the next 100 years if the extreme conservatives ever get their way. They'll have to pay for their own roads, water infrastructure and schools as the rest of society will look like Haiti.

The rich won't be as rich either as there won't be the kind of demand a well paid population has to buy their stuff.

The rich are ******* themselves...Limiting themselves and being really stupid.

You mean like the fenced/gated residence Obama will be living in after next Friday?
?

So what is your problem?

The ones telling us fences won't keep people that don't belong somewhere out do that very thing with the mindset of keeping people that don't belong there. Are you saying the fence at the Obama's is for decoration?

 

[Dragonlady]

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

I don't believe you.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Flopper]

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

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

I think it's a pretty good idea, however it will never fly because the abuse, both real and imaginary of such a program. That is why we have all the social service program rules and regulations plus the billions of dollars spent on program administration, all to make sure the beneficiary is worthy.

 

[mgh80]

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

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

I make more than $25K/year...but guess what? I earned it. I busted my ass in school, got a degree, and joined a profession that I absolutely love.

We coddle people enough in society.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Simpleton.

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

So you're in favour of legalized abortion?

 

[ding]

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

Simpleton.

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

So you're in favour of legalized abortion?

I think the states should decide. That way we can see which way is actually better.

 

[Winston]

Wrong, try reading the NC Constitution again. It says the State shall fund the University of North Carolina. It does not say access to higher education is not competitive.

I live in NC also. Or more applicable to this discussion, I can read ...

Who said it was not competitive. I said it was suppose to be FREE, at least as far as practical. Here, read it yourself, it is easy to find. Look under Article Nine titled "Education". Section 9

Sec. 9. Benefits of public institutions of higher education.

The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.

http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html

Swish. Valid point, but it doesn't contradict what I said. I said nothing said it can't be competitive. Saying it should be free still doesn't say everyone should be able to get it without competing for it

Well I got to wonder why you even mention "competitive" in regards to higher education in North Carolina. The Constitution specifically mentions the University of North Carolina. That could mean the whole system, there is a competitive entrance process at all state universities. But the flagship school would be the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, or the "Harvard" of public universities because of it's highly competitive admission process.

OK, stop making shit up and show the quote that says North Carolina citizens can all go there for free. It doesn't. Stop wasting my time

Don't be shocked if Winston gives you something and says that what it MEANS. People like him have a tendency to read into something what they WANT it to say rather than looking at what it actually says.

Dude, I posted the damn section. It is not my problem that you idiot conservatives can't freakin read.

 

[Winston]

No what happens is people living in more progressive areas get more progressive education, people living in more conservative areas get more conservative education.

Far from true.


Almost every university is populated by the same sort.

Every poll of professors shows the same bias.

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

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

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

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

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


Here, let's prove it together.

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

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


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


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

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



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

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

 

[Dragonlady]

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

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

I make more than $25K/year...but guess what? I earned it. I busted my ass in school, got a degree, and joined a profession that I absolutely love.

We coddle people enough in society.

Wrong. You pay low skill workers so little, they can't live on it. That's not "coddling". They receive health care via emergency rooms in overcrowded pubic hospitals, and no support to cover drug or health care costs. Prior to Obamacare (which was defunded this week), lack of health insurance and/or access for to health care killed 45,000 Americans a year. That's more 10,000 more people than are killed by guns in the US every year. I'd hardly call that coddling. They are educated in schools with not enough textbooks for each child, and no computer labs or special helps for the children of the poor. And CHIP was defunded this week too.

Coddled? My definition of coddling must be a whole lot difference than yours.

 

[mgh80]

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

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

I make more than $25K/year...but guess what? I earned it. I busted my ass in school, got a degree, and joined a profession that I absolutely love.

We coddle people enough in society.

Wrong. You pay low skill workers so little, they can't live on it. That's not "coddling". They receive health care via emergency rooms in overcrowded pubic hospitals, and no support to cover drug or health care costs. Prior to Obamacare (which was defunded this week), lack of health insurance and/or access for to health care killed 45,000 Americans a year. That's more 10,000 more people than are killed by guns in the US every year. I'd hardly call that coddling. They are educated in schools with not enough textbooks for each child, and no computer labs or special helps for the children of the poor. And CHIP was defunded this week too.

Coddled? My definition of coddling must be a whole lot difference than yours.

As a teacher I assure you that I know MUCH more about education than you do. Don't try and make an argument here: you will lose.

I can tell you that the high school kids of this generation are indeed coddled. They get everything handed to them. They then go out in the "real world" and expect things to work out that way for them...that's why they make less than $25K/year.

There's a reason why income is directly linked to education. In today's society every American has access to a "free", and quality education. The ones that don't take advantage of it are the ones I see at McDonald's a few years later.

I have zero sympathy for somebody who makes less than $25K and neglected/wasted their opportunities in life.

 

[Winston]

The problem with the government is the fact that they have placed so many restrictions and regulations on small businesses that tens of thousands of them have folded and no longer exist, thanks to the Obama Socialist Administration.

No the problem is that the Reagan administration has gutted the anti-trust laws so that larger corporations can price the little guys right out of existence, even if the initially lose money in doing so. When Walmart was busy "cratering" small retailers throughout America, they often dropped prices below cost until the competition was driven out of business and then raised prices back to their normal level. Not only did they win the competition for sales, but local retail workers had no other option but to work for Walmart on whatever terms they offered. A win/win for Walmart, but a loss for the town and its citizens.

Absolutely correct. They type of behavior would not be possible in a FREE MARKET economy. The Reagan revolution did not make our markets more "free"". They did the exact opposite because today, well there is a whole bunch of that type of behavior going own. It has a name. And it is exactly what a free market is suppose to be free from.

 

[Winston]

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

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

I make more than $25K/year...but guess what? I earned it. I busted my ass in school, got a degree, and joined a profession that I absolutely love.

We coddle people enough in society.

Wrong. You pay low skill workers so little, they can't live on it. That's not "coddling". They receive health care via emergency rooms in overcrowded pubic hospitals, and no support to cover drug or health care costs. Prior to Obamacare (which was defunded this week), lack of health insurance and/or access for to health care killed 45,000 Americans a year. That's more 10,000 more people than are killed by guns in the US every year. I'd hardly call that coddling. They are educated in schools with not enough textbooks for each child, and no computer labs or special helps for the children of the poor. And CHIP was defunded this week too.

Coddled? My definition of coddling must be a whole lot difference than yours.

As a teacher I assure you that I know MUCH more about education than you do. Don't try and make an argument here: you will lose.

I can tell you that the high school kids of this generation are indeed coddled. They get everything handed to them. They then go out in the "real world" and expect things to work out that way for them...that's why they make less than $25K/year.

There's a reason why income is directly linked to education. In today's society every American has access to a "free", and quality education. The ones that don't take advantage of it are the ones I see at McDonald's a few years later.

I have zero sympathy for somebody who makes less than $25K and neglected/wasted their opportunities in life.

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

This is the right thing to do....

Time to start helping people instead of hurting them.

I make more than $25K/year...but guess what? I earned it. I busted my ass in school, got a degree, and joined a profession that I absolutely love.

We coddle people enough in society.

Wrong. You pay low skill workers so little, they can't live on it. That's not "coddling". They receive health care via emergency rooms in overcrowded pubic hospitals, and no support to cover drug or health care costs. Prior to Obamacare (which was defunded this week), lack of health insurance and/or access for to health care killed 45,000 Americans a year. That's more 10,000 more people than are killed by guns in the US every year. I'd hardly call that coddling. They are educated in schools with not enough textbooks for each child, and no computer labs or special helps for the children of the poor. And CHIP was defunded this week too.

Coddled? My definition of coddling must be a whole lot difference than yours.

As a teacher I assure you that I know MUCH more about education than you do. Don't try and make an argument here: you will lose.

I can tell you that the high school kids of this generation are indeed coddled. They get everything handed to them. They then go out in the "real world" and expect things to work out that way for them...that's why they make less than $25K/year.

There's a reason why income is directly linked to education. In today's society every American has access to a "free", and quality education. The ones that don't take advantage of it are the ones I see at McDonald's a few years later.

I have zero sympathy for somebody who makes less than $25K and neglected/wasted their opportunities in life.

Well, color me unimpressed. Yes, there is a link between income and education. The higher your families income, the higher the level of education the children are likely to achieve. You would have to be delusional to believe the quality of education provided to the kids in an inner city school where ninety percent of the students get free lunch is the same as that provided to suburban kids in affluent areas. The bottom line

A student from the a low income family with SAT scores in the top twenty five percent has the same chance of attending a four year university as the student from the high income family scoring in the bottom 25%.

 

[Lewdog]

And making it all private loans is going to change that? Please..... Who's going to give a loan to a family that has a single parent making minimum wage? All he is going to do is make it even more difficult for a poor kid to get out of the slums and make it.

Lower tuition...oh wait colleges and universities are Dem campaign contributors, is that why you sit there with your thumbs up your ass while they charge kids $150k for a worthless diploma?

Lower tuition won't matter if people can't get approved for loans. What part of that don't you understand?

Goddamn whatever happened to working your way through college, you know getting a job. Or parents working a job and saving up for their kids college. When did it become my goddamn responsibility to work overtime and have to work until I'm 70 years old to retire because I had to pay to put other peoples kids through college?

If you choose to have kids they are YOUR financial responsibility not mine. If you come begging me for a tuition hand out you had better be working 2 jobs and trying to make it on your own first.

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

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

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

never heard of going to college part time ?

How many people go to college 8 years and finish? I'd like to see the stats on that. And no, not the story of one or two people, the stats on people as a whole.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No what happens is people living in more progressive areas get more progressive education, people living in more conservative areas get more conservative education.

Far from true.


Almost every university is populated by the same sort.

Every poll of professors shows the same bias.

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

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

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

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

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


Here, let's prove it together.

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

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


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


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

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



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

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

Why?

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Then you justify the government using money in a manner for which it has no authority? In other words, you oppose abiding by the Constitution?

Does constitution say we are to use money for foreign countries? Illegal wars? I doubt it. Oh and no I don't put much emphasis on the constitution I think its out dated and not clear enough. Not like our governments abide by it anyways so why the hell should we!?

Making min wage,need welfare to pay for food and rent and you expect the poor to pay for college? Special kind of stupid huh?

I also never said you had some right to being a 4 year full time student at a state university living in a dorm. Go take some classes at a community college while you work and live at home. Why the hell do we have to provide that for them?

That costs money as well. My wife is starting college come summer....not sure how in the hell we are gonna pay for her books yet....I got financial aid when I went for 1 semester but my books cost me over 300$....******* rip off. It doesn't cost AS MUCH as normal 4 year college does but it still costs money and the time as well...she will be working full time,help me take care of 4 kids and our home AND going to college...should be done in 2 years with her associates in Nursing so she can become an RN and EASILY double our income per year so its worth it,its just extremely hard and stressful.

See there. You don't need anything from tax payers. You two figured out how to get it done so why can't everyone else? Good luck to your wife.

Oh we could use it for sure. I am already now contemplating HOW to pay for her books..may end pawning title to car for it and get it back then I ain't sure. We get medicaid already as do the kids....We will be different once she becomes a great paid worker because I know my taxes are MUCH better off being used to bring people UP instead of just giving them welfare to sit on their ass...

Medicaid for you and the kids? You're welcome since I and my wife are two of those paying for your healthcare. Provide for you own kids. They're not anyone else's responsibility.

The whole reason people gathered in to tribes, nations, communities is because humans are incapable of being independent of other human beings. The whole point of banding together is to improve our chances of not only surviving, but thriving.

You determine that by paying for others to do for you, you are independent. You are just as dependent on others as your neighbours. Unless you are building your own home with your own hands, making your own clothes from fabric you wove yourself, and preparing and eating food you grew on your own land, you need the skills of members of your community to survive.

What if you need something you can't pay for? Medical services for example. Suppose you had a life threatening illness. Even a short stay in hospital can set you back $100,000 or more. Not to mention that you're dependent on the training, education and skills of others for your survival.

You want to be independent and not give a rat's ass about anyone else, then go live on a deserted island with no one else with you and see how long you last.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Then you justify the government using money in a manner for which it has no authority? In other words, you oppose abiding by the Constitution?

Does constitution say we are to use money for foreign countries? Illegal wars? I doubt it. Oh and no I don't put much emphasis on the constitution I think its out dated and not clear enough. Not like our governments abide by it anyways so why the hell should we!?

I also never said you had some right to being a 4 year full time student at a state university living in a dorm. Go take some classes at a community college while you work and live at home. Why the hell do we have to provide that for them?

That costs money as well. My wife is starting college come summer....not sure how in the hell we are gonna pay for her books yet....I got financial aid when I went for 1 semester but my books cost me over 300$....******* rip off. It doesn't cost AS MUCH as normal 4 year college does but it still costs money and the time as well...she will be working full time,help me take care of 4 kids and our home AND going to college...should be done in 2 years with her associates in Nursing so she can become an RN and EASILY double our income per year so its worth it,its just extremely hard and stressful.

See there. You don't need anything from tax payers. You two figured out how to get it done so why can't everyone else? Good luck to your wife.

Oh we could use it for sure. I am already now contemplating HOW to pay for her books..may end pawning title to car for it and get it back then I ain't sure. We get medicaid already as do the kids....We will be different once she becomes a great paid worker because I know my taxes are MUCH better off being used to bring people UP instead of just giving them welfare to sit on their ass...

Medicaid for you and the kids? You're welcome since I and my wife are two of those paying for your healthcare. Provide for you own kids. They're not anyone else's responsibility.

The whole reason people gathered in to tribes, nations, communities is because humans are incapable of being independent of other human beings. The whole point of banding together is to improve our chances of not only surviving, but thriving.

You determine that by paying for others to do for you, you are independent. You are just as dependent on others as your neighbours. Unless you are building your own home with your own hands, making your own clothes from fabric you wove yourself, and preparing and eating food you grew on your own land, you need the skills of members of your community to survive.

What if you need something you can't pay for? Medical services for example. Suppose you had a life threatening illness. Even a short stay in hospital can set you back $100,000 or more. Not to mention that you're dependent on the training, education and skills of others for your survival.

You want to be independent and not give a rat's ass about anyone else, then go live on a deserted island with no one else with you and see how long you last.

And there you have it folks...Retard level semantics and common Liberal Looney spin right there.

 

[Flopper]

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

I don't believe you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Flopper]

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

That's not what is being said.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Winston]

No what happens is people living in more progressive areas get more progressive education, people living in more conservative areas get more conservative education.

Far from true.


Almost every university is populated by the same sort.

Every poll of professors shows the same bias.

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

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

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

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

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


Here, let's prove it together.

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

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


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


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

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



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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

 

[jon_berzerk]

Then you justify the government using money in a manner for which it has no authority? In other words, you oppose abiding by the Constitution?

Does constitution say we are to use money for foreign countries? Illegal wars? I doubt it. Oh and no I don't put much emphasis on the constitution I think its out dated and not clear enough. Not like our governments abide by it anyways so why the hell should we!?

I also never said you had some right to being a 4 year full time student at a state university living in a dorm. Go take some classes at a community college while you work and live at home. Why the hell do we have to provide that for them?

That costs money as well. My wife is starting college come summer....not sure how in the hell we are gonna pay for her books yet....I got financial aid when I went for 1 semester but my books cost me over 300$....******* rip off. It doesn't cost AS MUCH as normal 4 year college does but it still costs money and the time as well...she will be working full time,help me take care of 4 kids and our home AND going to college...should be done in 2 years with her associates in Nursing so she can become an RN and EASILY double our income per year so its worth it,its just extremely hard and stressful.

See there. You don't need anything from tax payers. You two figured out how to get it done so why can't everyone else? Good luck to your wife.

Oh we could use it for sure. I am already now contemplating HOW to pay for her books..may end pawning title to car for it and get it back then I ain't sure. We get medicaid already as do the kids....We will be different once she becomes a great paid worker because I know my taxes are MUCH better off being used to bring people UP instead of just giving them welfare to sit on their ass...

Medicaid for you and the kids? You're welcome since I and my wife are two of those paying for your healthcare. Provide for you own kids. They're not anyone else's responsibility.

The whole reason people gathered in to tribes, nations, communities is because humans are incapable of being independent of other human beings. The whole point of banding together is to improve our chances of not only surviving, but thriving.

You determine that by paying for others to do for you, you are independent. You are just as dependent on others as your neighbours. Unless you are building your own home with your own hands, making your own clothes from fabric you wove yourself, and preparing and eating food you grew on your own land, you need the skills of members of your community to survive.

What if you need something you can't pay for? Medical services for example. Suppose you had a life threatening illness. Even a short stay in hospital can set you back $100,000 or more. Not to mention that you're dependent on the training, education and skills of others for your survival.

You want to be independent and not give a rat's ass about anyone else, then go live on a deserted island with no one else with you and see how long you last.

it only works when each pulls his/her own weight