How do you expand the middle class

[The Rabbi]

Again, the uniquely conservative schism of hearing one thing and comprehending another rears it's ugly head once more.

More education is better than less education. College graduates have a lower unemployement rate than non college graduates and they make more money than people like you.

So you agree we should start a program to teach Sanskrit to every college grad in the country because people who can read Sanskrit make more money than people who dont?

Again, whatever it is that is in your ears or covers your eyes that prevents you from comprehending Englsih needs to be removed.

Take care.

OK,so you are opposed to education? Is that what I am hearing from you? Or do you not think a knowledge of Sanskrit is an education? Or do you disagree that the average wage of Sanskrit literate people is higher than average?
Take your pick.
Or you can chump out because I've exposed your argument for the flatulent fraud that it is.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, if my job were inspecting toilets for a municipality I suppose the liberal view would make more sense.

However if I had studied economics I would know that growth comes from investment. And investment occurs in environments where profit can be expected. And an environment of high taxes and costly and changing regulations is not conducive to profit making. The result would be companies hoarding cash and waiting for the environment to change, or investing in other countries that did provide a promising economic environment.

Fortunately I did study economics so I know the truth. Which is why I'm not inspecting toilet for a municipality somewhere.

IFis a big word. Cause IF you had studies economics you would have been talking about demand as a driver of growth and profits. But either you missed those classes or simply forgot all about demand driving growth. Who knows with you.

What I do know is cuts in regs for corporations and cuts in taxes for the corps and ultra wealthy won't do jack shit for middle class consumer demand. And 70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Damned government spends the other 30.

You sure you studied economics??

Life has made him it's *****.

So now you want to munch my carpet?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Politically speaking, educated persons seem to support Democrats far more than Republicans. Maybe "the smart ones" as you call them know something you don't?

bwahahaha....

your 'educated' liberal pinheads can come out of their ivory tower now....their stupid methods have been proven wrong....once again....

else why would we be having this discussion in the first place....?

I guess there is no "maybe" about it...

When, at the behest of their "leaders", shunned education, investing in education, and generally tried to equate educated with being somehow "soft", you see the result we have today.

Are there problems in education? Sure. We do not stress the STEM fields anywhere near as much as we should or could. We spend millions on baseketball and football coaches who have minimal effect on even their own student's successes. We have replaced real learning with the striving for a degree by trying to shoehorn every subject into some 4 year plan.

Educators need to do a better job, bottom line.

The two barriers to getting an education are primarily access and costs. We can't do much about access but we can do something about costs. And we can do it in a way that won't break the bank and deliver a very good ROI for both the current workforce and future generations.

i don't understand your first two paragraphs...but i guess they do the job to ignore my post on the other ways to help the middle class....

i agree with your second two paragraphs....

your last paragraph......
1. access - everybody who can graduate high school with decent grades today has access to college
2. costs - costs keep rising because everything is rising....education is a service....all services are rising in price....

your idea of 'fronting' the cost of college is hardly any different than students getting Pell Grants and Stafford loans....you just want to make them available to everybody who can beathe....and have the colleges become a direct function of the Federal government which would result in more future strings...i.e. control....a socialist's dream...

face it....there are plenty of people who have no need to go to college....i know that is not PC to say so....but it is the truth...

 

[The Rabbi]

face it....there are plenty of people who have no need to go to college....i know that is not PC to say so....but it is the truth...

It goes beyond not having any need. You aren't doing them any good sending them.
A person needs a certain IQ to understand an economics textbook. Less than that not only will he not understand it, he will misunderstand what he reads. So he has actually learned less than nothing by attending a class he is not suitable for.
That isn't an insult. That person might be aces running construction machinery, which is difficult. Instead of going to college he would be better off learning how to run a backhoe and making good money.

 

[candycorn]

IFis a big word. Cause IF you had studies economics you would have been talking about demand as a driver of growth and profits. But either you missed those classes or simply forgot all about demand driving growth. Who knows with you.

What I do know is cuts in regs for corporations and cuts in taxes for the corps and ultra wealthy won't do jack shit for middle class consumer demand. And 70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Damned government spends the other 30.

You sure you studied economics??

Life has made him it's *****.

So now you want to munch my carpet?

You're already there munching it every day of your miserable life.

 

[candycorn]

So you agree we should start a program to teach Sanskrit to every college grad in the country because people who can read Sanskrit make more money than people who dont?

Again, whatever it is that is in your ears or covers your eyes that prevents you from comprehending Englsih needs to be removed.

Take care.

OK,so you are opposed to education? Is that what I am hearing from you? Or do you not think a knowledge of Sanskrit is an education? Or do you disagree that the average wage of Sanskrit literate people is higher than average?
Take your pick.
Or you can chump out because I've exposed your argument for the flatulent fraud that it is.

Nobody knows what you're talking about and that includes you as well.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, whatever it is that is in your ears or covers your eyes that prevents you from comprehending Englsih needs to be removed.

Take care.

OK,so you are opposed to education? Is that what I am hearing from you? Or do you not think a knowledge of Sanskrit is an education? Or do you disagree that the average wage of Sanskrit literate people is higher than average?
Take your pick.
Or you can chump out because I've exposed your argument for the flatulent fraud that it is.

Nobody knows what you're talking about and that includes you as well.

I didnt realize you spoke for everyone, you miserable ignoramus. You can't deal with my argument so you deflect. Unfortunately that makes you look stoopid.

 

[logical4u]

It's relevant. There are loads of unneeded jobs created by the bloated defense and homeland security depts. We should slash them to the bone, and use that money on health care in the cites, and better schools for blacks and hispanics.

Didnt know we still had segregated schools asshat.....earth to fool the year is 2013 not 1930.

We do have segregated schools. Not by law, fortunately, but sadly by the racism of whites whose racist "white flight" attitude has caused so much environmental and societal damage.

"White flight"???? Do you think that people should be forced to stay in neighborhoods where they are not "allowed" to defend themselves, their children and their property?

Why don't you see these "urban" neighborhoods stopping the hoodlums that grow within stopping them? Why don't you see the "parents" of these hoodlums (oh, that's right, we cannot say that a TWO PARENT family is the best way to raise a child) discipline them and teach them morals (like why it is wrong to attack the helpless)?

Why is it when black urbanites act really, really bad, that the IDIOTS out there want to blame the "white" people? "White people are kept out of their lives by "choice" (theirs), except for the taxes that go to support their subsidized lives. So many of these urbanites reject everything that makes a successful life (morals, hard work, learning from mistakes, improving your education, investing, and thrift), and it is the fault of the people that follow those ideals and are trying hard to survive the IDIOTS that believe taking what the producers make, and giving it to those that reject the proven work ethic will somehow make "society" better?

Just when will the people that reject education, reject morals, reject laws, and reject any advice of how to be successful in life, be held accountable for their own actions? When will the spoiled people in this nation that have no idea where their food is produced, how an animal is slaughtered to provide their meat, how electricity reaches their "switch", how roads and bridges are built, etc, etc, etc, stop BLAMING the people that are busy producing those necessities and niceities, and tell the people that choose to do nothing with their lives: hey, if you want what they have, follow their example and earn it!?

Seriously, when?

 

[candycorn]

bwahahaha....

your 'educated' liberal pinheads can come out of their ivory tower now....their stupid methods have been proven wrong....once again....

else why would we be having this discussion in the first place....?

I guess there is no "maybe" about it...

When, at the behest of their "leaders", shunned education, investing in education, and generally tried to equate educated with being somehow "soft", you see the result we have today.

Are there problems in education? Sure. We do not stress the STEM fields anywhere near as much as we should or could. We spend millions on baseketball and football coaches who have minimal effect on even their own student's successes. We have replaced real learning with the striving for a degree by trying to shoehorn every subject into some 4 year plan.

Educators need to do a better job, bottom line.

The two barriers to getting an education are primarily access and costs. We can't do much about access but we can do something about costs. And we can do it in a way that won't break the bank and deliver a very good ROI for both the current workforce and future generations.

i don't understand your first two paragraphs...but i guess they do the job to ignore my post on the other ways to help the middle class....

You were quoted in the entirety.

Lets look at the two paragraphs you don't understand...

When, at the behest of their "leaders", shunned education, investing in education, and generally tried to equate educated with being somehow "soft", you see the result we have today.

Here is the guy who got the 2nd highest amount of delegates to the GOP National Convention in 2012:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjbJOSwq3A]Santorum: Obama "A Snob" For Wanting Everyone To Go To College - YouTube[/ame]

Were you unaware of this calling the president a "snob" for thinking that everyone should go to college?

Were you unaware that this is the basic feeling of the GOP?

Are there problems in education? Sure. We do not stress the STEM fields anywhere near as much as we should or could. We spend millions on baseketball and football coaches who have minimal effect on even their own student's successes. We have replaced real learning with the striving for a degree by trying to shoehorn every subject into some 4 year plan.

Okay...we have problems in the way we teach kids; someone pointed out that we don't teach critical thinking skills as much as we should... I agree.

I think we spend entirely too much money on non-education matters at school. We did an outreach at one public high school and they had a student lounge like a Starbucks. It was very nice but really...the cost?

i agree with your second two paragraphs....

your last paragraph......
1. access - everybody who can graduate high school with decent grades today has access to college

Not really, they have access to on-line courses but the quality of that "education" is suspect. You may as well poll You Tube for the same effect in some cases, not all.

2. costs - costs keep rising because everything is rising....education is a service....all services are rising in price....

I tend to think that the costs are rising because of the student loans that are available; if the only loan you could get was for $1,000 a year, I tend to think that a lot of these "colleges" that we see advertised during I Love Lucy re-runs would miraculously reduce their price to $1,000 a year.

your idea of 'fronting' the cost of college is hardly any different than students getting Pell Grants and Stafford loans....

Not true--you called the current system "arduous" if I recall. Also you have to qualify for Pell grants; no qualification is needed. Also the grants are not paid back...what I'm endorsing is a system that replaces grants based on need so borderline students who don't qualify for grants are still able to go to college.

Also, the grants are available for 12 semesters...this would cover 60 hours which is sometimes covered in 4 semesters...a big cost savings on how much the government is putting forward and the 60 hours are set to be paid back, not so with grants.

you just want to make them available to everybody who can beathe....and have the colleges become a direct function of the Federal government which would result in more future strings...i.e. control....a socialist's dream...

Pfft...

The two programs YOU mentioned above are federal programs. You failed to mention the GI Bill. All these exist today!!! Are colleges "direct function(s) of the Federal government" today? No. No where near it. And what bewilders me is that one of the programs is money that Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer will never see again.

face it....there are plenty of people who have no need to go to college....i know that is not PC to say so....but it is the truth...

I couldn't agree more. There are plenty that have no need to go to college. Just as there is little need for cable TV in the kitchen, having an affair if you're married, a car that can go faster than 70 MPH... They're nice to have though.

I found out yesterday a co-worker of mine was a Notary Public. She did that to enhance her income. Was there a need? No...maybe...maybe not? Dunno.

However if you want to go to college to embetter yourself, you should be able to do it, I feel. To sit in judgment that it isn't necessary is, I think, cruel at best and un-American at worst.

Especially if the set-up isn't a grant (that you sponsor or at least seem to) that isn't paid back versus a loan that is paid back over time through automatic payroll deduction which takes full effect regardless of profession--it takes place regardless of whether you have a job in the field you studied so if you want to take 60 hours of dodgeball, feel free, you will have to pay it back at your job which likely won't be in dodgeball.

 

[The Rabbi]

Check your own sig line. Contrary to lib belief, not everyone should go to college. And yes, we have way too many people going to college now.
I realize you dont understand this because you utterly flunked my Sanskrit example, not even understanding the question, much less the implications.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I guess there is no "maybe" about it...

When, at the behest of their "leaders", shunned education, investing in education, and generally tried to equate educated with being somehow "soft", you see the result we have today.

Are there problems in education? Sure. We do not stress the STEM fields anywhere near as much as we should or could. We spend millions on baseketball and football coaches who have minimal effect on even their own student's successes. We have replaced real learning with the striving for a degree by trying to shoehorn every subject into some 4 year plan.

Educators need to do a better job, bottom line.

The two barriers to getting an education are primarily access and costs. We can't do much about access but we can do something about costs. And we can do it in a way that won't break the bank and deliver a very good ROI for both the current workforce and future generations.

i don't understand your first two paragraphs...but i guess they do the job to ignore my post on the other ways to help the middle class....

You were quoted in the entirety.

Lets look at the two paragraphs you don't understand...


Here is the guy who got the 2nd highest amount of delegates to the GOP National Convention in 2012:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjbJOSwq3A]Santorum: Obama "A Snob" For Wanting Everyone To Go To College - YouTube[/ame]

Were you unaware of this calling the president a "snob" for thinking that everyone should go to college?

Were you unaware that this is the basic feeling of the GOP?

Okay...we have problems in the way we teach kids; someone pointed out that we don't teach critical thinking skills as much as we should... I agree.

I think we spend entirely too much money on non-education matters at school. We did an outreach at one public high school and they had a student lounge like a Starbucks. It was very nice but really...the cost?

Not really, they have access to on-line courses but the quality of that "education" is suspect. You may as well poll You Tube for the same effect in some cases, not all.


I tend to think that the costs are rising because of the student loans that are available; if the only loan you could get was for $1,000 a year, I tend to think that a lot of these "colleges" that we see advertised during I Love Lucy re-runs would miraculously reduce their price to $1,000 a year.


Not true--you called the current system "arduous" if I recall. Also you have to qualify for Pell grants; no qualification is needed. Also the grants are not paid back...what I'm endorsing is a system that replaces grants based on need so borderline students who don't qualify for grants are still able to go to college.

Also, the grants are available for 12 semesters...this would cover 60 hours which is sometimes covered in 4 semesters...a big cost savings on how much the government is putting forward and the 60 hours are set to be paid back, not so with grants.

you just want to make them available to everybody who can beathe....and have the colleges become a direct function of the Federal government which would result in more future strings...i.e. control....a socialist's dream...

Pfft...

The two programs YOU mentioned above are federal programs. You failed to mention the GI Bill. All these exist today!!! Are colleges "direct function(s) of the Federal government" today? No. No where near it. And what bewilders me is that one of the programs is money that Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer will never see again.

face it....there are plenty of people who have no need to go to college....i know that is not PC to say so....but it is the truth...

I couldn't agree more. There are plenty that have no need to go to college. Just as there is little need for cable TV in the kitchen, having an affair if you're married, a car that can go faster than 70 MPH... They're nice to have though.

I found out yesterday a co-worker of mine was a Notary Public. She did that to enhance her income. Was there a need? No...maybe...maybe not? Dunno.

However if you want to go to college to embetter yourself, you should be able to do it, I feel. To sit in judgment that it isn't necessary is, I think, cruel at best and un-American at worst.

Especially if the set-up isn't a grant (that you sponsor or at least seem to) that isn't paid back versus a loan that is paid back over time through automatic payroll deduction which takes full effect regardless of profession--it takes place regardless of whether you have a job in the field you studied so if you want to take 60 hours of dodgeball, feel free, you will have to pay it back at your job which likely won't be in dodgeball.

just like your word "embetter" some of your writing is rather lacking in the coherence dept...but yes....i understand the thrust of what Obama said.....and also Santorum's brilliant response....it's what i meant when i said earlier that i knew it wasn't "PC" to say that all kids don't need to go to college....

Obama has made it "politically correct" for all of you liberals to believe that all people must attend college in order to progress in life.....and you have swallowed his socialistic garbage hook, line, and sinker....and that's why you propose that the federal government be responsible for fronting college money for everybody....

this will not help advance the middle class.....first, it would place too much power in the hands of the federal government and we have already seen how well that works.....second, there is no need for everyone to go to college so it is a complete waste of money.....third, there are better ways to encourage the STEM fields and higher scholastics...

 

[zeke]

Well, if my job were inspecting toilets for a municipality I suppose the liberal view would make more sense.

However if I had studied economics I would know that growth comes from investment. And investment occurs in environments where profit can be expected. And an environment of high taxes and costly and changing regulations is not conducive to profit making. The result would be companies hoarding cash and waiting for the environment to change, or investing in other countries that did provide a promising economic environment.

Fortunately I did study economics so I know the truth. Which is why I'm not inspecting toilet for a municipality somewhere.

IFis a big word. Cause IF you had studies economics you would have been talking about demand as a driver of growth and profits. But either you missed those classes or simply forgot all about demand driving growth. Who knows with you.

What I do know is cuts in regs for corporations and cuts in taxes for the corps and ultra wealthy won't do jack shit for middle class consumer demand. And 70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Damned government spends the other 30.

You sure you studied economics??

There's a tremendous demand for sitting and watching porn all day. I dont see it paying especially well.
So much for your argument.
You'd better spend your time reading Sowell's Economics, A Citizens Guide, then posting trite drivel on this site.

That's all you got? With your vaunted economic class. What'd you do, flunk? You got nothing but bullshit and deflection. And evidently have a second screen open where you sit and watch porn all day. When you aren't posting thousands of words of bull shit and non sense. Porn has rotted what little brain you have.

No wonder your response makes no sense.

 

[candycorn]

i don't understand your first two paragraphs...but i guess they do the job to ignore my post on the other ways to help the middle class....

You were quoted in the entirety.

Lets look at the two paragraphs you don't understand...


Here is the guy who got the 2nd highest amount of delegates to the GOP National Convention in 2012:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjbJOSwq3A]Santorum: Obama "A Snob" For Wanting Everyone To Go To College - YouTube[/ame]

Were you unaware of this calling the president a "snob" for thinking that everyone should go to college?

Were you unaware that this is the basic feeling of the GOP?

Okay...we have problems in the way we teach kids; someone pointed out that we don't teach critical thinking skills as much as we should... I agree.

I think we spend entirely too much money on non-education matters at school. We did an outreach at one public high school and they had a student lounge like a Starbucks. It was very nice but really...the cost?

Not really, they have access to on-line courses but the quality of that "education" is suspect. You may as well poll You Tube for the same effect in some cases, not all.


I tend to think that the costs are rising because of the student loans that are available; if the only loan you could get was for $1,000 a year, I tend to think that a lot of these "colleges" that we see advertised during I Love Lucy re-runs would miraculously reduce their price to $1,000 a year.


Not true--you called the current system "arduous" if I recall. Also you have to qualify for Pell grants; no qualification is needed. Also the grants are not paid back...what I'm endorsing is a system that replaces grants based on need so borderline students who don't qualify for grants are still able to go to college.

Also, the grants are available for 12 semesters...this would cover 60 hours which is sometimes covered in 4 semesters...a big cost savings on how much the government is putting forward and the 60 hours are set to be paid back, not so with grants.


Pfft...

The two programs YOU mentioned above are federal programs. You failed to mention the GI Bill. All these exist today!!! Are colleges "direct function(s) of the Federal government" today? No. No where near it. And what bewilders me is that one of the programs is money that Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer will never see again.

face it....there are plenty of people who have no need to go to college....i know that is not PC to say so....but it is the truth...

I couldn't agree more. There are plenty that have no need to go to college. Just as there is little need for cable TV in the kitchen, having an affair if you're married, a car that can go faster than 70 MPH... They're nice to have though.

I found out yesterday a co-worker of mine was a Notary Public. She did that to enhance her income. Was there a need? No...maybe...maybe not? Dunno.

However if you want to go to college to embetter yourself, you should be able to do it, I feel. To sit in judgment that it isn't necessary is, I think, cruel at best and un-American at worst.

Especially if the set-up isn't a grant (that you sponsor or at least seem to) that isn't paid back versus a loan that is paid back over time through automatic payroll deduction which takes full effect regardless of profession--it takes place regardless of whether you have a job in the field you studied so if you want to take 60 hours of dodgeball, feel free, you will have to pay it back at your job which likely won't be in dodgeball.

just like your word "embetter" some of your writing is rather lacking in the coherence dept...but yes....i understand the thrust of what Obama said.....and also Santorum's brilliant response....it's what i meant when i said earlier that i knew it wasn't "PC" to say that all kids don't need to go to college....

Obama has made it "politically correct" for all of you liberals to believe that all people must attend college in order to progress in life.....and you have swallowed his socialistic garbage hook, line, and sinker....and that's why you propose that the federal government be responsible for fronting college money for everybody....

I wrote this yesterday...

I couldn't agree more. There are plenty that have no need to go to college.

I dont know why you think that I am stating that all people must or should go to college

this will not help advance the middle class.....first, it would place too much power in the hands of the federal government and we have already seen how well that works.....second, there is no need for everyone to go to college so it is a complete waste of money.....third, there are better ways to encourage the STEM fields and higher scholastics...

1, again you fail to demonstrate how this would increase the power of the federal government. We already have federal student aid available to nearly everyone.

2, again not everyone would go to college miraculously because funding is available otherwise they would be doing it now. Secondly it replaces grants that are not paid back with loans so it saves money both in principle and practice since the currenf program of gifts is for 6 years and the proposal is for 2. You are simply wrong or do not understand the proposal.

3, There are other methods of stimulating STEM enrollment but its arguable if they are better.

Try debating the issue for a change without the politics. You may learn something for a change.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You were quoted in the entirety.

Lets look at the two paragraphs you don't understand...


Here is the guy who got the 2nd highest amount of delegates to the GOP National Convention in 2012:

Santorum: Obama "A Snob" For Wanting Everyone To Go To College - YouTube

Were you unaware of this calling the president a "snob" for thinking that everyone should go to college?

Were you unaware that this is the basic feeling of the GOP?

Okay...we have problems in the way we teach kids; someone pointed out that we don't teach critical thinking skills as much as we should... I agree.

I think we spend entirely too much money on non-education matters at school. We did an outreach at one public high school and they had a student lounge like a Starbucks. It was very nice but really...the cost?

Not really, they have access to on-line courses but the quality of that "education" is suspect. You may as well poll You Tube for the same effect in some cases, not all.


I tend to think that the costs are rising because of the student loans that are available; if the only loan you could get was for $1,000 a year, I tend to think that a lot of these "colleges" that we see advertised during I Love Lucy re-runs would miraculously reduce their price to $1,000 a year.


Not true--you called the current system "arduous" if I recall. Also you have to qualify for Pell grants; no qualification is needed. Also the grants are not paid back...what I'm endorsing is a system that replaces grants based on need so borderline students who don't qualify for grants are still able to go to college.

Also, the grants are available for 12 semesters...this would cover 60 hours which is sometimes covered in 4 semesters...a big cost savings on how much the government is putting forward and the 60 hours are set to be paid back, not so with grants.


Pfft...

The two programs YOU mentioned above are federal programs. You failed to mention the GI Bill. All these exist today!!! Are colleges "direct function(s) of the Federal government" today? No. No where near it. And what bewilders me is that one of the programs is money that Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer will never see again.



I couldn't agree more. There are plenty that have no need to go to college. Just as there is little need for cable TV in the kitchen, having an affair if you're married, a car that can go faster than 70 MPH... They're nice to have though.

I found out yesterday a co-worker of mine was a Notary Public. She did that to enhance her income. Was there a need? No...maybe...maybe not? Dunno.

However if you want to go to college to embetter yourself, you should be able to do it, I feel. To sit in judgment that it isn't necessary is, I think, cruel at best and un-American at worst.

Especially if the set-up isn't a grant (that you sponsor or at least seem to) that isn't paid back versus a loan that is paid back over time through automatic payroll deduction which takes full effect regardless of profession--it takes place regardless of whether you have a job in the field you studied so if you want to take 60 hours of dodgeball, feel free, you will have to pay it back at your job which likely won't be in dodgeball.

just like your word "embetter" some of your writing is rather lacking in the coherence dept...but yes....i understand the thrust of what Obama said.....and also Santorum's brilliant response....it's what i meant when i said earlier that i knew it wasn't "PC" to say that all kids don't need to go to college....

Obama has made it "politically correct" for all of you liberals to believe that all people must attend college in order to progress in life.....and you have swallowed his socialistic garbage hook, line, and sinker....and that's why you propose that the federal government be responsible for fronting college money for everybody....

I wrote this yesterday...

I couldn't agree more. There are plenty that have no need to go to college.

I dont know why you think that I am stating that all people must or should go to college

this will not help advance the middle class.....first, it would place too much power in the hands of the federal government and we have already seen how well that works.....second, there is no need for everyone to go to college so it is a complete waste of money.....third, there are better ways to encourage the STEM fields and higher scholastics...

1, again you fail to demonstrate how this would increase the power of the federal government. We already have federal student aid available to nearly everyone.

2, again not everyone would go to college miraculously because funding is available otherwise they would be doing it now. Secondly it replaces grants that are not paid back with loans so it saves money both in principle and practice since the currenf program of gifts is for 6 years and the proposal is for 2. You are simply wrong or do not understand the proposal.

3, There are other methods of stimulating STEM enrollment but its arguable if they are better.

Try debating the issue for a change without the politics. You may learn something for a change.

which issue are you referring to that doesn't have politics attached to it....?

 

[The Rabbi]

IFis a big word. Cause IF you had studies economics you would have been talking about demand as a driver of growth and profits. But either you missed those classes or simply forgot all about demand driving growth. Who knows with you.

What I do know is cuts in regs for corporations and cuts in taxes for the corps and ultra wealthy won't do jack shit for middle class consumer demand. And 70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Damned government spends the other 30.

You sure you studied economics??

There's a tremendous demand for sitting and watching porn all day. I dont see it paying especially well.
So much for your argument.
You'd better spend your time reading Sowell's Economics, A Citizens Guide, then posting trite drivel on this site.

That's all you got? With your vaunted economic class. What'd you do, flunk? You got nothing but bullshit and deflection. And evidently have a second screen open where you sit and watch porn all day. When you aren't posting thousands of words of bull shit and non sense. Porn has rotted what little brain you have.

No wonder your response makes no sense.

Translation: You're right and I have nothing to counter with so I'm going ad hom.

Thanks. You've made your ignorance clear.

 

[candycorn]

just like your word "embetter" some of your writing is rather lacking in the coherence dept...but yes....i understand the thrust of what Obama said.....and also Santorum's brilliant response....it's what i meant when i said earlier that i knew it wasn't "PC" to say that all kids don't need to go to college....

Obama has made it "politically correct" for all of you liberals to believe that all people must attend college in order to progress in life.....and you have swallowed his socialistic garbage hook, line, and sinker....and that's why you propose that the federal government be responsible for fronting college money for everybody....

I wrote this yesterday...


I dont know why you think that I am stating that all people must or should go to college

this will not help advance the middle class.....first, it would place too much power in the hands of the federal government and we have already seen how well that works.....second, there is no need for everyone to go to college so it is a complete waste of money.....third, there are better ways to encourage the STEM fields and higher scholastics...

1, again you fail to demonstrate how this would increase the power of the federal government. We already have federal student aid available to nearly everyone.

2, again not everyone would go to college miraculously because funding is available otherwise they would be doing it now. Secondly it replaces grants that are not paid back with loans so it saves money both in principle and practice since the currenf program of gifts is for 6 years and the proposal is for 2. You are simply wrong or do not understand the proposal.

3, There are other methods of stimulating STEM enrollment but its arguable if they are better.

Try debating the issue for a change without the politics. You may learn something for a change.

which issue are you referring to that doesn't have politics attached to it....?

You keep injecting politics into it and when you're not doing that, you seem to just be a curmudgeon as to whether education is necessary at all.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I wrote this yesterday...


I dont know why you think that I am stating that all people must or should go to college


1, again you fail to demonstrate how this would increase the power of the federal government. We already have federal student aid available to nearly everyone.

2, again not everyone would go to college miraculously because funding is available otherwise they would be doing it now. Secondly it replaces grants that are not paid back with loans so it saves money both in principle and practice since the currenf program of gifts is for 6 years and the proposal is for 2. You are simply wrong or do not understand the proposal.

3, There are other methods of stimulating STEM enrollment but its arguable if they are better.

Try debating the issue for a change without the politics. You may learn something for a change.

which issue are you referring to that doesn't have politics attached to it....?

You keep injecting politics into it and when you're not doing that, you seem to just be a curmudgeon as to whether education is necessary at all.

i just took a look around and i believe we are still in the politics section....whatsa prob...can't handle it...?

i never said no education is necessary.....i proposed that at age 16 kids could choose to finish high school in a trade-type school with the aim being a decent job....this could be anything from auto shop to computers...

instead of thousands of high school dropouts and going-nowhere bored students we could get lots of kids working in things they like to do and help grow the middle class instead of them doing drugs and having babies and going on welfare.... (of course this needs to be combined with sensible economic policies that help create jobs)

 

[zeke]

There's a tremendous demand for sitting and watching porn all day. I dont see it paying especially well.
So much for your argument.
You'd better spend your time reading Sowell's Economics, A Citizens Guide, then posting trite drivel on this site.

That's all you got? With your vaunted economic class. What'd you do, flunk? You got nothing but bullshit and deflection. And evidently have a second screen open where you sit and watch porn all day. When you aren't posting thousands of words of bull shit and non sense. Porn has rotted what little brain you have.

No wonder your response makes no sense.

Translation: You're right and I have nothing to counter with so I'm going ad hom.

Thanks. You've made your ignorance clear.

Go back to your porn there rabbie. Economics don't seem to be your "thang".
Demand for porn will drive the economy eh? You learned that... where??

 

[zeke]

which issue are you referring to that doesn't have politics attached to it....?

You keep injecting politics into it and when you're not doing that, you seem to just be a curmudgeon as to whether education is necessary at all.

i just took a look around and i believe we are still in the politics section....whatsa prob...can't handle it...?

i never said no education is necessary.....i proposed that at age 16 kids could choose to finish high school in a trade-type school with the aim being a decent job....this could be anything from auto shop to computers...

instead of thousands of high school dropouts and going-nowhere bored students we could get lots of kids working in things they like to do and help grow the middle class instead of them doing drugs and having babies and going on welfare.... (of course this needs to be combined with sensible economic policies that help create jobs)

You mean like it used to be. When I went to high school.

You know how much those shops cost? How much the teachers cost? Who will pay for this idea? Will industry contribute more than they do to training a future workforce. How do you bring the math and reading scores up to a level that the student can learn computers or tool and die? Where will the students find work?

So many questions. So few answers.

And why did we ever quit doing this kind of high school training?

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep injecting politics into it and when you're not doing that, you seem to just be a curmudgeon as to whether education is necessary at all.

i just took a look around and i believe we are still in the politics section....whatsa prob...can't handle it...?

i never said no education is necessary.....i proposed that at age 16 kids could choose to finish high school in a trade-type school with the aim being a decent job....this could be anything from auto shop to computers...

instead of thousands of high school dropouts and going-nowhere bored students we could get lots of kids working in things they like to do and help grow the middle class instead of them doing drugs and having babies and going on welfare.... (of course this needs to be combined with sensible economic policies that help create jobs)

You mean like it used to be. When I went to high school.

You know how much those shops cost? How much the teachers cost? Who will pay for this idea? Will industry contribute more than they do to training a future workforce. How do you bring the math and reading scores up to a level that the student can learn computers or tool and die? Where will the students find work?

So many questions. So few answers.

And why did we ever quit doing this kind of high school training?

Because our leaders told us everyone ought to go to college.