How do you expand the middle class

[The Rabbi]

people grow up in their 30's..... just saying. thats why folks still vote Republican.

People grow up at all kinds of ages. My great grandfather came to this country at 16 by himself and was completely responsible for every aspect of his existence.
But he had to. There was no one to help him.
Today there is an industry of bureaucrats seeking to convince people they need gov't help, which beats working. Allowing people a free ride through school for 8 years or whatever won't help with that.

Bullshit.

**** you. Go beat some twink's head against the pavement you raving psycho.

 

[candycorn]

I guess I can not really argue with you about this. It would benifit the entire country if they do something in their lesiure time then just watch T.V. or **** off on the net...

The details are yet to be determined; there are many ways to go about this but I think we can agree that more education is better than less education. The sole things that prevent acquisition of more education is cost and access. Access is a problem but we can do something about cost.

if I know how how to give a postive rep I would candy.... your on to some thing...

Thanks.

 

[candycorn]

And classes will fill up if that happens; its not as if it's elementary or junior high school and it's compulsory that districts provide the instruction regardless of class size. Some classes will fill up; I can only hope all of them do.

And I think there is our real benefit; skilled workers will seek to enhance their skills making their companies more competitive eventually and making themselves more employable, hopefully earning more...

Just like all those kids today clamoring for more education, right?
No. They will get out of school no more employable than before and just get on welfare or disability. Because people tend to take the path of least resistence.

people grow up in their 30's..... just saying. thats why folks still vote Republican.

Let me say this about that and the alleged fiscal responsibility that the GOP boasts about;

Remember this idea/plan/scheme or whatever you want to call it will not be totally new money.

The State and Federal Student Aid money that already goes toward the freshman and sophomore years will be supplanted by this program. The difference is that the grants that are not paid back will now be paid back so the money given to these students will find it's way back into federal coffers with interest.

Obviously, there will be some people who find a way around the system through multiple SSNs, clerical errors, folks who can't/wont find a job, untimely deaths, etc... But the same is true for the grants that were never designed to be paid back and those who default on student loans already.

And, just to expand the point, the reason for federal student aid is because some of the more enlightened leaders of the past saw that there was a need to infuse the talent base and pay for college. I wouldn't find the idea so repugnant to limit the program to only taxpayer supported institutions so that what you have is basically a transfer of money from the budget to the State supported colleges. If that is part of the package, you'll get funding relief since there is now funding taking place through paid tuitions.

Finally, if you want to make it for only "desired" fields such as the STEM fields (for those who don't know that is an acronym for Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics), that would, in my opinion, be a bad idea compared to the hope/promise that if you want to be the next Versace or Jasper Johns or Mr. Goodwrench, you have the opportunity. But even at it's worst, ramping up funding for STEM students is a great idea!!!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I guess I can not really argue with you about this. It would benifit the entire country if they do something in their lesiure time then just watch T.V. or **** off on the net...

The details are yet to be determined; there are many ways to go about this but I think we can agree that more education is better than less education. The sole things that prevent acquisition of more education is cost and access. Access is a problem but we can do something about cost.

Candy you should really start a thread on this subject.... because I think your on to something. who could dissagree? hell we blew dollars on useless wars...we blew dollars on useless welfare...

kids can ALREADY get government loans called Pell Grants and Stafford loans......in fact today the amount of outstanding school loans are greater than outstanding credit card loan debt......so what's the big monetary difference in what she's proposing.....? ...none...

the real difference.....it's called complete control of college education by the Feds...

 

[candycorn]

The details are yet to be determined; there are many ways to go about this but I think we can agree that more education is better than less education. The sole things that prevent acquisition of more education is cost and access. Access is a problem but we can do something about cost.

Candy you should really start a thread on this subject.... because I think your on to something. who could dissagree? hell we blew dollars on useless wars...we blew dollars on useless welfare...

kids can ALREADY get government loans called Pell Grants and Stafford loans......in fact today the amount of outstanding school loans are greater than outstanding credit card loan debt......so what's the big monetary difference in what she's proposing.....? ...none...

the real difference.....it's called complete control of college education by the Feds...

Nonsense.

How will the feds gain complete control of education? You can take whatever you want under the plan I layed out. Superstition is a poor substitute for reasoning.

As for the differences...there are major differences.

You have to qualify for the grants by having a need for one thing; there is no qualification in what I'm proposing. That is a difference. I think your borrowing ability is tied to your family income as well.

All too often (if not exclusively) the grants and loans you describe are for students taking a minimum number of hours; no such qualification exists in what I'm proposing. The example I use is that if a trucker wants to take a course to get HAZMAT certification, there is now a pre-paid path for him or her to do that. If you're a pharmacy technician (as I am now) and would like to take courses to become IV Certified or get Compounding certs (as I do), you don't have to decide between keeping the lights on and paying tuition. That is a difference.

Instead of going through a bank and having the government back your loan, you get a voucher to take 60 hours of post high-school training with an automatic, pre-tax, pre-set deduction from your future earnings. This will also reduce your taxes since the money is removed from future paychecks. That is a difference.


Major differences and there is no "federal takeover of education" in this idea.

 

[Defiant1]

Candy you should really start a thread on this subject.... because I think your on to something. who could dissagree? hell we blew dollars on useless wars...we blew dollars on useless welfare...

kids can ALREADY get government loans called Pell Grants and Stafford loans......in fact today the amount of outstanding school loans are greater than outstanding credit card loan debt......so what's the big monetary difference in what she's proposing.....? ...none...

the real difference.....it's called complete control of college education by the Feds...

Nonsense.

How will the feds gain complete control of education? You can take whatever you want under the plan I layed out. Superstition is a poor substitute for reasoning.

As for the differences...there are major differences.

You have to qualify for the grants by having a need for one thing; there is no qualification in what I'm proposing. That is a difference. I think your borrowing ability is tied to your family income as well.

All too often (if not exclusively) the grants and loans you describe are for students taking a minimum number of hours; no such qualification exists in what I'm proposing. The example I use is that if a trucker wants to take a course to get HAZMAT certification, there is now a pre-paid path for him or her to do that. If you're a pharmacy technician (as I am now) and would like to take courses to become IV Certified or get Compounding certs (as I do), you don't have to decide between keeping the lights on and paying tuition. That is a difference.

Instead of going through a bank and having the government back your loan, you get a voucher to take 60 hours of post high-school training with an automatic, pre-tax, pre-set deduction from your future earnings. This will also reduce your taxes since the money is removed from future paychecks. That is a difference.


Major differences and there is no "federal takeover of education" in this idea.

I'd make one small change to the payback policy. The government gets 100% of the increase in pay until the "loan" is completely paid back.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Candy you should really start a thread on this subject.... because I think your on to something. who could dissagree? hell we blew dollars on useless wars...we blew dollars on useless welfare...

kids can ALREADY get government loans called Pell Grants and Stafford loans......in fact today the amount of outstanding school loans are greater than outstanding credit card loan debt......so what's the big monetary difference in what she's proposing.....? ...none...

the real difference.....it's called complete control of college education by the Feds...

Nonsense.

How will the feds gain complete control of education? You can take whatever you want under the plan I layed out. Superstition is a poor substitute for reasoning.

As for the differences...there are major differences.

You have to qualify for the grants by having a need for one thing; there is no qualification in what I'm proposing. That is a difference. I think your borrowing ability is tied to your family income as well.

All too often (if not exclusively) the grants and loans you describe are for students taking a minimum number of hours; no such qualification exists in what I'm proposing. The example I use is that if a trucker wants to take a course to get HAZMAT certification, there is now a pre-paid path for him or her to do that. If you're a pharmacy technician (as I am now) and would like to take courses to become IV Certified or get Compounding certs (as I do), you don't have to decide between keeping the lights on and paying tuition. That is a difference.

Instead of going through a bank and having the government back your loan, you get a voucher to take 60 hours of post high-school training with an automatic, pre-tax, pre-set deduction from your future earnings. This will also reduce your taxes since the money is removed from future paychecks. That is a difference.


Major differences and there is no "federal takeover of education" in this idea.

how will the Feds gain complete control.....?

all you have to do is look at Medicaid....a program created for the poor paid for by both the state and the federal governments.....then along comes Obamacare (which is essentially Medicaid warmed over) and guess who is dictating your healthcare these days....? universal healthcare is the next step...why don't the Feds just take over paying for Medicaid and leave the States with more funds for their State Universities...? duh...because they want to completely control education...


your plan melds the Feds together directly with State colleges.....essentially providing 'free' college for anybody by essentially funneling directly past the students to the college instead of students applying individually for federally-insured loans which require at least some kind of upfront decision....you can bet there would be tons more 'strings' attached to these funds too....and you can also bet the loans would also 'necessarily skyrocket'.....just notice how healthcare costs are going up....

another 'cradle to grave' national socialism plan for the masses...

what i would suggest instead.....make those current student loans which are confusing simply guaranteed available to all students who obtain at least a B average in high school (or the age 16-18 alternative trade school i suggested).....this would make things easy to understand even at the young person's level.....even the ghetto kid would 'get it' that he had a way out if he applied himself...

 

[candycorn]

kids can ALREADY get government loans called Pell Grants and Stafford loans......in fact today the amount of outstanding school loans are greater than outstanding credit card loan debt......so what's the big monetary difference in what she's proposing.....? ...none...

the real difference.....it's called complete control of college education by the Feds...

Nonsense.

How will the feds gain complete control of education? You can take whatever you want under the plan I layed out. Superstition is a poor substitute for reasoning.

As for the differences...there are major differences.

You have to qualify for the grants by having a need for one thing; there is no qualification in what I'm proposing. That is a difference. I think your borrowing ability is tied to your family income as well.

All too often (if not exclusively) the grants and loans you describe are for students taking a minimum number of hours; no such qualification exists in what I'm proposing. The example I use is that if a trucker wants to take a course to get HAZMAT certification, there is now a pre-paid path for him or her to do that. If you're a pharmacy technician (as I am now) and would like to take courses to become IV Certified or get Compounding certs (as I do), you don't have to decide between keeping the lights on and paying tuition. That is a difference.

Instead of going through a bank and having the government back your loan, you get a voucher to take 60 hours of post high-school training with an automatic, pre-tax, pre-set deduction from your future earnings. This will also reduce your taxes since the money is removed from future paychecks. That is a difference.


Major differences and there is no "federal takeover of education" in this idea.

what i would suggest instead.....make those current student loans which are confusing simply guaranteed available to all students who obtain at least a B average in high school (or the age 16-18 alternative trade school i suggested).....this would make things easy to understand even at the young person's level.....even the ghetto kid would 'get it' that he had a way out if he applied himself...

And that would expand the middle class how exactly? You had a good idea with the technical school. This one seems like what we have now which is based on long obsolete models of what education is. It's no longer serving this nation well.

 

[candycorn]

kids can ALREADY get government loans called Pell Grants and Stafford loans......in fact today the amount of outstanding school loans are greater than outstanding credit card loan debt......so what's the big monetary difference in what she's proposing.....? ...none...

the real difference.....it's called complete control of college education by the Feds...

Nonsense.

How will the feds gain complete control of education? You can take whatever you want under the plan I layed out. Superstition is a poor substitute for reasoning.

As for the differences...there are major differences.

You have to qualify for the grants by having a need for one thing; there is no qualification in what I'm proposing. That is a difference. I think your borrowing ability is tied to your family income as well.

All too often (if not exclusively) the grants and loans you describe are for students taking a minimum number of hours; no such qualification exists in what I'm proposing. The example I use is that if a trucker wants to take a course to get HAZMAT certification, there is now a pre-paid path for him or her to do that. If you're a pharmacy technician (as I am now) and would like to take courses to become IV Certified or get Compounding certs (as I do), you don't have to decide between keeping the lights on and paying tuition. That is a difference.

Instead of going through a bank and having the government back your loan, you get a voucher to take 60 hours of post high-school training with an automatic, pre-tax, pre-set deduction from your future earnings. This will also reduce your taxes since the money is removed from future paychecks. That is a difference.


Major differences and there is no "federal takeover of education" in this idea.

I'd make one small change to the payback policy. The government gets 100% of the increase in pay until the "loan" is completely paid back.

Are you saying that the HAZMAT cert should not come with more pay until the loan is paid back 100%?

Not the worst idea ever but as far as it goes, not a great idea...Sometimes you don't get an increase in pay. When I got my CPHT (pharmacy cert), I didn't get an increase; I did it to both contribute more and to show the brass I'm not stagnating...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Nonsense.

How will the feds gain complete control of education? You can take whatever you want under the plan I layed out. Superstition is a poor substitute for reasoning.

As for the differences...there are major differences.

You have to qualify for the grants by having a need for one thing; there is no qualification in what I'm proposing. That is a difference. I think your borrowing ability is tied to your family income as well.

All too often (if not exclusively) the grants and loans you describe are for students taking a minimum number of hours; no such qualification exists in what I'm proposing. The example I use is that if a trucker wants to take a course to get HAZMAT certification, there is now a pre-paid path for him or her to do that. If you're a pharmacy technician (as I am now) and would like to take courses to become IV Certified or get Compounding certs (as I do), you don't have to decide between keeping the lights on and paying tuition. That is a difference.

Instead of going through a bank and having the government back your loan, you get a voucher to take 60 hours of post high-school training with an automatic, pre-tax, pre-set deduction from your future earnings. This will also reduce your taxes since the money is removed from future paychecks. That is a difference.


Major differences and there is no "federal takeover of education" in this idea.

what i would suggest instead.....make those current student loans which are confusing simply guaranteed available to all students who obtain at least a B average in high school (or the age 16-18 alternative trade school i suggested).....this would make things easy to understand even at the young person's level.....even the ghetto kid would 'get it' that he had a way out if he applied himself...

And that would expand the middle class how exactly? You had a good idea with the technical school. This one seems like what we have now which is based on long obsolete models of what education is. It's no longer serving this nation well.

we can encourage more and better participation in both the technical and the regular colleges...

you would have more kids studying harder to go to college (& stay in college) because they would be GUARANTEED to get funding no matter what....right now the funding application process is confusing and daunting to many...even the parents.....lots of high school students don't even know about them...

right now alot of kids do not understand the relationship between their grades & study habits and money for college/getting a better job....this would CLARIFY it for them...

in fact we could sweeten the pot by also promising a combination of guaranteed grants with the guaranteed loans....

what we want in the colleges (and high tech trade schools) are young people who have proven their worth and ability......not a carte blanche ticket to everybody so they can attend the Party School of their choice...

we don't need to completely change the relationship between the state and federal governments with regard to college....just streamline the loan process we have now...

 

[candycorn]

what i would suggest instead.....make those current student loans which are confusing simply guaranteed available to all students who obtain at least a B average in high school (or the age 16-18 alternative trade school i suggested).....this would make things easy to understand even at the young person's level.....even the ghetto kid would 'get it' that he had a way out if he applied himself...

And that would expand the middle class how exactly? You had a good idea with the technical school. This one seems like what we have now which is based on long obsolete models of what education is. It's no longer serving this nation well.

we can encourage more and better participation in both the technical and the regular colleges...

you would have more kids studying harder to go to college (& stay in college) because they would be GUARANTEED to get funding no matter what....right now the funding application process is confusing and daunting to many...even the parents.....lots of high school students don't even know about them...

right now alot of kids do not understand the relationship between their grades & study habits and money for college/getting a better job....this would CLARIFY it for them...

in fact we could sweeten the pot by also promising a combination of guaranteed grants with the guaranteed loans....

what we want in the colleges (and high tech trade schools) are young people who have proven their worth and ability......not a carte blanche ticket to everybody so they can attend the Party School of their choice...

we don't need to completely change the relationship between the state and federal governments with regard to college....just streamline the loan process we have now...

So basically tweaking the system and streamlining a process of loans and grants, you think, will expand the middle class? I think you are woefully mistaken. To quote a movie I once saw, "The time for talk and half measures has passed."

I'm talking about taking those who have "proved their worth and ability" and giving them a real opporutnity to further their training to stay on that cutting edge. I'm talking about allowing kids to get a leg up for college or, if THEY WISH, a lifetime of fixing automobiles or welding or logistics or what have you. There is no shame in learning how to turn a wrench or working in a machine shop.

As for changing the relationship; currently the government backs loans, right? The "change" is that they will back the loans that will come with no qualification.

Whatsmore, wee get rid of the unfair grant process as to where you're punished if your family is comfortable; we remove the #1 barrier between people and education/training which is paying for it; and we end up with a largely self-sustaining system that will take years to get up and running but tomorrow's workers will be paying for the training of today's studiers. Much in the same way social security works

 

[The Rabbi]

what i would suggest instead.....make those current student loans which are confusing simply guaranteed available to all students who obtain at least a B average in high school (or the age 16-18 alternative trade school i suggested).....this would make things easy to understand even at the young person's level.....even the ghetto kid would 'get it' that he had a way out if he applied himself...

And that would expand the middle class how exactly? You had a good idea with the technical school. This one seems like what we have now which is based on long obsolete models of what education is. It's no longer serving this nation well.

we can encourage more and better participation in both the technical and the regular colleges...

you would have more kids studying harder to go to college (& stay in college) because they would be GUARANTEED to get funding no matter what....right now the funding application process is confusing and daunting to many...even the parents.....lots of high school students don't even know about them...

right now alot of kids do not understand the relationship between their grades & study habits and money for college/getting a better job....this would CLARIFY it for them...

in fact we could sweeten the pot by also promising a combination of guaranteed grants with the guaranteed loans....

what we want in the colleges (and high tech trade schools) are young people who have proven their worth and ability......not a carte blanche ticket to everybody so they can attend the Party School of their choice...

we don't need to completely change the relationship between the state and federal governments with regard to college....just streamline the loan process we have now...

Here;s a better idea:
Get the ******* government out of the education business where they have no right to be. Someone wants to go to school? They can apply for scholarships from the school. If that isn't enough, they can go to the bank and borrow money, like any otehr asset. Knowing they have to pay the money back will encourage people to do well and finish school. People will be more determined when they are spending their own money.
Currently way too many people go to college. This has led to a glut in BAs, with the result that the degree is nearly worthless. And how many people currently have jobs they didnt need a college degree for?

 

[candycorn]

And that would expand the middle class how exactly? You had a good idea with the technical school. This one seems like what we have now which is based on long obsolete models of what education is. It's no longer serving this nation well.

we can encourage more and better participation in both the technical and the regular colleges...

you would have more kids studying harder to go to college (& stay in college) because they would be GUARANTEED to get funding no matter what....right now the funding application process is confusing and daunting to many...even the parents.....lots of high school students don't even know about them...

right now alot of kids do not understand the relationship between their grades & study habits and money for college/getting a better job....this would CLARIFY it for them...

in fact we could sweeten the pot by also promising a combination of guaranteed grants with the guaranteed loans....

what we want in the colleges (and high tech trade schools) are young people who have proven their worth and ability......not a carte blanche ticket to everybody so they can attend the Party School of their choice...

we don't need to completely change the relationship between the state and federal governments with regard to college....just streamline the loan process we have now...

Currently way too many people go to college.

This is the barrier you guys have to overcome before 2016...

 

[The Rabbi]

we can encourage more and better participation in both the technical and the regular colleges...

you would have more kids studying harder to go to college (& stay in college) because they would be GUARANTEED to get funding no matter what....right now the funding application process is confusing and daunting to many...even the parents.....lots of high school students don't even know about them...

right now alot of kids do not understand the relationship between their grades & study habits and money for college/getting a better job....this would CLARIFY it for them...

in fact we could sweeten the pot by also promising a combination of guaranteed grants with the guaranteed loans....

what we want in the colleges (and high tech trade schools) are young people who have proven their worth and ability......not a carte blanche ticket to everybody so they can attend the Party School of their choice...

we don't need to completely change the relationship between the state and federal governments with regard to college....just streamline the loan process we have now...

Currently way too many people go to college.

This is the barrier you guys have to overcome before 2016...

I realize it goes against what you've heard all your life, but it's the truth. That means for you you cannot wrap your tiny mind around it to debate it, much less accept its truth.

 

[candycorn]

Currently way too many people go to college.

This is the barrier you guys have to overcome before 2016...

I realize it goes against what you've heard all your life, but it's the truth. That means for you you cannot wrap your tiny mind around it to debate it, much less accept its truth.

It goes against logic. It's why you guys keep losing elections. You'll do well in 2014; don't get me wrong. It will take gerrymandered districts and a lot more democratic seats being in play than GOP seats in the Senate. You'll mistake that for an endorsement of your, literally, stupid stance.

In 2016, if the GOP wins then, it will be because morons like you have been neutralized; not because you've been embraced.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is the barrier you guys have to overcome before 2016...

I realize it goes against what you've heard all your life, but it's the truth. That means for you you cannot wrap your tiny mind around it to debate it, much less accept its truth.

It goes against logic. It's why you guys keep losing elections. You'll do well in 2014; don't get me wrong. It will take gerrymandered districts and a lot more democratic seats being in play than GOP seats in the Senate. You'll mistake that for an endorsement of your, literally, stupid stance.

In 2016, if the GOP wins then, it will be because morons like you have been neutralized; not because you've been embraced.

Not everything has to do with elections.
It is perfectly logical. What has happened to the starting salaries of all college grads over the last 20 years?
The GOP will sweep the elections in '14 and 16 because the Democrats have proven themselves grossly incompetent and scandal ridden. America is getting fed up with them.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I realize it goes against what you've heard all your life, but it's the truth. That means for you you cannot wrap your tiny mind around it to debate it, much less accept its truth.

It goes against logic. It's why you guys keep losing elections. You'll do well in 2014; don't get me wrong. It will take gerrymandered districts and a lot more democratic seats being in play than GOP seats in the Senate. You'll mistake that for an endorsement of your, literally, stupid stance.

In 2016, if the GOP wins then, it will be because morons like you have been neutralized; not because you've been embraced.

Not everything has to do with elections.
It is perfectly logical. What has happened to the starting salaries of all college grads over the last 20 years?
The GOP will sweep the elections in '14 and 16 because the Democrats have proven themselves grossly incompetent and scandal ridden. America is getting fed up with them.

I don't know if the GOP will sweep in '14 or '16. This country has changed (and not for the better). I fully expect that fat-assed Hillary Clinton to sweep the presidential race and, frankly, there aren't that many "true conservatives" left in government to do much about it.

Just remember - if your name is Vince or Foster - you'd do well to run for the hills.....

 

[candycorn]

I realize it goes against what you've heard all your life, but it's the truth. That means for you you cannot wrap your tiny mind around it to debate it, much less accept its truth.

It goes against logic. It's why you guys keep losing elections. You'll do well in 2014; don't get me wrong. It will take gerrymandered districts and a lot more democratic seats being in play than GOP seats in the Senate. You'll mistake that for an endorsement of your, literally, stupid stance.

In 2016, if the GOP wins then, it will be because morons like you have been neutralized; not because you've been embraced.

Not everything has to do with elections.
It is perfectly logical. What has happened to the starting salaries of all college grads over the last 20 years?

What has happened to job prospects for non college grads--forget salaries--in the last 20 years? Hmmm?

The GOP will sweep the elections in '14 and 16 because the Democrats have proven themselves grossly incompetent and scandal ridden. America is getting fed up with them.

Ask President Perry about it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Just like all those kids today clamoring for more education, right?
No. They will get out of school no more employable than before and just get on welfare or disability. Because people tend to take the path of least resistence.

Student debt has surpassed consumer credit card debt....yes, they are clamoring for more education.

Everyone else seems to think that colleges are going to be swamped with students.

Which is it?

Colleges are swamped with students. That is why the UE rate for recent grads resembles the Palestinian Authority. That is exactly the problem.
Students are clamoring for mroe time in college, esp now with no jobs out there. That does not equal more education though.
Personally I think corporations should recruit high school students and open their own "universities", just as some already do.

I couldn't agree more. When my Father and Mother attended University - admission was nearly impossible without the proper grades and recommendations. When I and my Wife attended University (in the 70s), you had to apply, be accepted - based on your cumulative GPA, get scholarships (I had the GI Bill) and then work your butt off.

Today? Walk into most any University, fill out the paperwork and start tomorrow.

The result? There ARE way too many "non-qualifed" students attending college. My Best friend was an electrician - he was required to go through a 4 year apprenticeship program and received his license. Before he passed away, his last year, he made $122,000.

Another friend (a truck driver) - High school education - makes $80,000 per year. College educations are hardly necessary for everyone. The biggest problem these kids face today is that they waste 4-5 years getting a English degree from XYZ University and are no more qualified to get a job than their high school graduate friends are.

Plumbers, Electricians, Carpenters, Welders, et al, make a damn sight more money than most college graduates. When you cheapen something to the point of irrelevance - then it is irrelevant. Most College degrees today are completely irrelevant and will be for the next 40-50 years.

 

[The Rabbi]

It goes against logic. It's why you guys keep losing elections. You'll do well in 2014; don't get me wrong. It will take gerrymandered districts and a lot more democratic seats being in play than GOP seats in the Senate. You'll mistake that for an endorsement of your, literally, stupid stance.

In 2016, if the GOP wins then, it will be because morons like you have been neutralized; not because you've been embraced.

Not everything has to do with elections.
It is perfectly logical. What has happened to the starting salaries of all college grads over the last 20 years?

What has happened to job prospects for non college grads--forget salaries--in the last 20 years? Hmmm?

Avoiding the question means you've lost.

It depends. The non college grads who went to trade school and became electricians and computer programmers seem to be doing just fine.