Everyone making less then 25,000 per year

[Lewdog]

I didn't get an answer about my part time student question so here is a chart... part time students do not do as well at finishing their degree as full time students... not even close.

America’s Awful College Dropout Rates, in Four Charts

 

[Harry Dresden]

I can agree with the OP, with one caveat. If you take this deal, you have a 5 year limit for food stamps and educational assistance.

And as for what sort of classes, skip the computer or business classes. The chances of that helping them is slim to none.

Give them training in a trade. Teach them skills such as plumbing, welding, laying brick, splicing fiber optics, or any one of a dozen vocational training classes that will give them a real job and a future.

I can agree with you with one caveat. If you think this is such a good idea, YOU pay for it. If the costs were placed on those that think it's a good idea, we'd see just how much they actually care.

I'm proving an education for MY children. If some kid's parents won't provide their own with an education, it damn sure isn't my place to do it regardless of the caveats. If those parents don't think their own child is a good enough investment, I sure don't.

We will all pay for it now or pay for it later. This way gives us productive citizens with actual skills.

Get Soros and Buffet to pay for it!

Or get the Universities to stop paying $300,000 for people like Clinton to speak and give that money to help people pay for school!

get the Universities to stop paying $300,000 for people like Clinton to speak and give that money to help people pay for school
dam i actually agree with kosh on this......

If Hillary truly believed in what she said about funding college for those that can't afford it, she'd voluntarily do that without the universities having to do a thing.

well i think we know she doesnt believe in that....but then she is like most of us,just out to make a buck....

 

[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 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%.

Yes, they have a chance but there is one huge difference. The student from a low income family is most probably going to walk out of college with a huge college loan to payoff. So even if they get a decent job, they will still be living one step from poverty. An of course there is always the chance they will not be able to finish college, possibly not for years, possibly never. Then what? They get a crappy job and they have a college loan they will be paying off for the rest of their life.

 

[Harry Dresden]

and wants to live in the 8th century.....

Not quite that far back. More 12th to 13th Century.

not that much of a difference...unless you get into the renaissance period not much has changed during that time period.......

 

[Conservative65]

I can agree with you with one caveat. If you think this is such a good idea, YOU pay for it. If the costs were placed on those that think it's a good idea, we'd see just how much they actually care.

I'm proving an education for MY children. If some kid's parents won't provide their own with an education, it damn sure isn't my place to do it regardless of the caveats. If those parents don't think their own child is a good enough investment, I sure don't.

We will all pay for it now or pay for it later. This way gives us productive citizens with actual skills.

Get Soros and Buffet to pay for it!

Or get the Universities to stop paying $300,000 for people like Clinton to speak and give that money to help people pay for school!

get the Universities to stop paying $300,000 for people like Clinton to speak and give that money to help people pay for school
dam i actually agree with kosh on this......

If Hillary truly believed in what she said about funding college for those that can't afford it, she'd voluntarily do that without the universities having to do a thing.

well i think we know she doesnt believe in that....but then she is like most of us,just out to make a buck....

Difference is while both she and I are out to make a buck, she's saying "free" college should be done and I'm not.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Free from burdensome government control such as minimum wage and the like.

 

[Harry Dresden]

We will all pay for it now or pay for it later. This way gives us productive citizens with actual skills.

Get Soros and Buffet to pay for it!

Or get the Universities to stop paying $300,000 for people like Clinton to speak and give that money to help people pay for school!

get the Universities to stop paying $300,000 for people like Clinton to speak and give that money to help people pay for school
dam i actually agree with kosh on this......

If Hillary truly believed in what she said about funding college for those that can't afford it, she'd voluntarily do that without the universities having to do a thing.

well i think we know she doesnt believe in that....but then she is like most of us,just out to make a buck....

Difference is while both she and I are out to make a buck, she's saying "free" college should be done and I'm not.

and she was also trying to get elected....

 

[Conservative65]

Get Soros and Buffet to pay for it!

Or get the Universities to stop paying $300,000 for people like Clinton to speak and give that money to help people pay for school!

get the Universities to stop paying $300,000 for people like Clinton to speak and give that money to help people pay for school
dam i actually agree with kosh on this......

If Hillary truly believed in what she said about funding college for those that can't afford it, she'd voluntarily do that without the universities having to do a thing.

well i think we know she doesnt believe in that....but then she is like most of us,just out to make a buck....

Difference is while both she and I are out to make a buck, she's saying "free" college should be done and I'm not.

and she was also trying to get elected....

That doesn't change that if she supports such a thing, that money she kept for herself should have gone to fund what she supported.

 

[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.

Free from burdensome government control such as minimum wage and the like.

Nope. Not even close. Who told you that?

A free market is a market free from economic rent.

 

[Flopper]

I didn't get an answer about my part time student question so here is a chart... part time students do not do as well at finishing their degree as full time students... not even close.

America’s Awful College Dropout Rates, in Four Charts

I went to college two years full time and 5 years part time. Full time is definitely the way to go in my opinion if you can possibly do it. Working all day, taking care of your family and then going to school at night is not a good way to learn. Also, part time students miss out on a lot good things in college, discussion groups, social activities, working with professors, sports, and making friends and contacts that you will carry thru life.

 

[jillian]

Everyone making less then 25,000 per year should get $300...

Feel free to use your own money.

You should probably avail yourself of the opportunity he advocates.

 

[Conservative65]

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's not my responsibility to give a rat's ass about anyone else. It's my responsibility to take care of me. If, in doing so, I come to a VOLUNTARY agreement to share resources, that's not what you support with a government mandating it. You don't seem to get that. If the HOA in my community decides to do something as a community and it involves everyone coming bringing something to share, that's not what you propose. You propose those refusing to bring something still being able to participate.

I see you use the typical doom and gloom mentality of a Liberal. If you make things sound bad enough, you can scare people into doing what you want. As for paying for my medical bills, my insurance is very good. The most I'm going to pay out of pocket in a year is $750. I have no problem coming up with that. What I have a problem with is people like you wanting to change things where that $750 goes up. Since I don't owe anyone anything and my costs shouldn't increase because someone else doesn't have what I have, any increase in that because of that reason is entirely unacceptable.

 

[jillian]

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.

Free from burdensome government control such as minimum wage and the like.

Nope. Not even close. Who told you that?

A free market is a market free from economic rent.

What you call a "free market" has never worked.

 

[Lewdog]

I didn't get an answer about my part time student question so here is a chart... part time students do not do as well at finishing their degree as full time students... not even close.

America’s Awful College Dropout Rates, in Four Charts

I went to college two years full time and 5 years part time. Full time is definitely the way to go in my opinion if you can possibly do it. Working all day, taking care of your family and then going to school at night is not a good way to learn. Also, part time students miss out on a lot good things in college, discussion groups, social activities, working with professors, sports, and making friends and contacts that you will carry thru life.

Well my response was to another poster who had stated that if someone can't afford to go to college or able to get a personal loan once Trump gets rids of government college funding, to work and go to school part time. Fact is, those that would have to go to college part time, would be at a huge disadvantage to those that could go to full time, thus perpetuating the cycle of poor people unable to get out of poverty.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Free from burdensome government control such as minimum wage and the like.

Nope. Not even close. Who told you that?

A free market is a market free from economic rent.

What dumbass told you that? Sad you believed them.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Free from burdensome government control such as minimum wage and the like.

Nope. Not even close. Who told you that?

A free market is a market free from economic rent.

What you call a "free market" has never worked.

What you support with socialism has never worked.

 

[initforme]

So many people making a low wage because they have no education is the problem. On 10 bucks per hour, one cannot afford rent, or a vehicle, or heat, etc. They are forced to live with their parents as they work 40 plus hours per week. Anything less than 20 bucks an hour will not permit self sufficiency.

 

[Winston]

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.

Free from burdensome government control such as minimum wage and the like.

Nope. Not even close. Who told you that?

A free market is a market free from economic rent.

What you call a "free market" has never worked.

When has there ever been one? And a better question, are markets more free today than, say 1970? What about 1950?

 

[initforme]

My youngest son asked me about entering the work world at eighteen with no college education or join the.military, etc. I would have none of it. And he has thanked me since. He didn't have to start out on the very bottom. I ensured college was his choice.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Free from burdensome government control such as minimum wage and the like.

Nope. Not even close. Who told you that?

A free market is a market free from economic rent.

What you call a "free market" has never worked.

When has there ever been one? And a better question, are markets more free today than, say 1970? What about 1950?

Better question is why won't the government stick to it's business instead of that of the market?