Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[westwall]

Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter.

Yup. I wasn't intending to contradict him.

That being said what is the goal of the philosophy major? Teach at the alma mater or go elsewhere?

Teach elsewhere, mostly likely. As I said, it's a tenured-track program, meaning he's got a decent shot of find a position as a professor at a major university. As a failsafe, he's a hell of a programmer in his own right and has that as a backup plan.

I have a PhD in geology so understand tenure. Philosophy is an unusual major these days.

 

[dblack]

I have a PhD in geology so understand tenure. Philosophy is an unusual major these days.

Indeed. And very competitive. He didn't have the creds to get into a top-ten program, but he did land top twenty, and is very focused on cognitive-science as a complementary specialty. It's not a pie-in-the-sky fantasy. He has more practical sense about him than I ever did.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm not religious so I have never read the Bible so can't help you there. However, I do know that merely giving people money without teaching them HOW to earn money only serves to make them dependent on you who have given them the money. That is a lesson that has been learned repeatedly over the millennia. How do you deal with people who CHOOSE to remain in poverty? Must the rest of society be forced to care for them?

I actually DO agree with some aspect of that to be honest. If someone wants to check out of society I am quite happy to give them a two room apartment, feed them, give them a nice TV and a game system and let them play away till they die. The trade off is they don't get to vote, or have children. They become wards of the State and as such they have no right to procreate.

Now, should they decide that they no longer wish to live that way and decide to become productive members of society then that door is always open for them too. Nothing is permanent.

How does that work for you?

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

The result is the same. It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth. If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying. Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough. In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes. To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

I actually do agree with on taxes. The middle class is not paying enough taxes. However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr, it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family. If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right. However, that presents two problems. Higher education is not cheap. In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers. Far too many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers. That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.

I'm not talking about that family making $30,000, I'm talking about that family making almost double that still not paying taxes. The income I gave was based purely on that family taking the standard deduction, 5 exemptions, and the child tax credit x 3. I followed the 1040 form starting with Line 7 income of $58,249. Line 6d is 5 for the number of exemptions. Reduce that $58,249 by the standard deduction of $12,400 and now the income subject to being taxes is $45,849. Each exemption from line 6d is worth $3,950 or a total of $19,750. Now that $45,849 becomes $26,099 subject to tax. Taxes, using the tax table, is figured on that amount and it's $2,996. Each child gets a tax credit of $1000 for a total of $3000. Credits are an actual dollar amount deduction from the tax liability. When the $3000 is subtracted from the $2996, it's $0 tax liability since the tax form states if subtracting is less than zero you put $0. That the family doesn't pay income taxes on that $58,249 involves only the makeup of the family. If they, for some reason, have other deduction or credits, the amount before they pay income taxes is even higher. If their gross income was $1 more, it puts them in the next line up making their income taxes $4. That $4 tax on a gross income means they pay 6/100,000th of a percent in income taxes.

I didn't say that person making $8/hour for $8/hour skills was enough. I said that if the person only offers $8/hour skills, the problem is with the person offering not the person paying a skill equivalent wage. If that $8/hour isn't enough, that doesn't mean, by default, the payer should pay more because the person offers sucky skills.

There are many decent paying jobs paying more than $8/hour where only a high school diploma is required. I served as an elected commissioner for a local public service entity several years ago. We hired people green in training and trained them. It was non-union and we started at somewhere around $17/hour. The only education required was a high school diploma. At the local technical college, many degree programs are 60 - 66 semester hours. The state's lottery funds a large portion of technical college tuition. A person getting an AA degree can get the entire degree using lottery funds to offset tuition for less than $7500 total investment to them. I just looked on their website and a 16 hour semester or 1/4 the total hour requirement costs $1816 per semester with lottery money. All one has to do to qualify for lottery money is live in the state and take a minimum of 6 hours per semester. If the person lives in the county, it's less per semester because local property taxes go to the school. I pay not much less than their total cost per year for my daughter to attend a private university and she receive over $28,000/year in scholarships.

If the rest of us are expected to invest in low skilled workers, shouldn't they be willing to invest some in themselves?

 

[Flopper]

If you're going go to a community college, you should get a par-professional degree where there is some local demand or continue your studies at a 4 year school. Without real experience, a community college graduate can't compete graduates from a 4 year schools.

I think this is definitely a 'your-mileage-may-vary' situation. Both my sons started out via the community college route. Both transferred to top level universities. One is an engineer for Google in SF and the other is getting his PhD in philosophy at a tenured-track program.

Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter. That being said what is the goal of the philosophy major? Teach at the alma mater or go elsewhere?

Anyone who majors in philosophy, anthropology, history, sociology, and a number of liberal art disciplines better not be depending on these degrees to get them a job. Over the long term they may well serve you well but they aren't going get you a job at graduation.

Only 3% of our graduates have liberal arts degrees, yet 20% of our presidents are liberal arts graduates.

 

[Flopper]

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

The result is the same. It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth. If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying. Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough. In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes. To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

I actually do agree with on taxes. The middle class is not paying enough taxes. However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr, it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family. If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right. However, that presents two problems. Higher education is not cheap. In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers. Far too many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers. That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.

I'm not talking about that family making $30,000, I'm talking about that family making almost double that still not paying taxes. The income I gave was based purely on that family taking the standard deduction, 5 exemptions, and the child tax credit x 3. I followed the 1040 form starting with Line 7 income of $58,249. Line 6d is 5 for the number of exemptions. Reduce that $58,249 by the standard deduction of $12,400 and now the income subject to being taxes is $45,849. Each exemption from line 6d is worth $3,950 or a total of $19,750. Now that $45,849 becomes $26,099 subject to tax. Taxes, using the tax table, is figured on that amount and it's $2,996. Each child gets a tax credit of $1000 for a total of $3000. Credits are an actual dollar amount deduction from the tax liability. When the $3000 is subtracted from the $2996, it's $0 tax liability since the tax form states if subtracting is less than zero you put $0. That the family doesn't pay income taxes on that $58,249 involves only the makeup of the family. If they, for some reason, have other deduction or credits, the amount before they pay income taxes is even higher. If their gross income was $1 more, it puts them in the next line up making their income taxes $4. That $4 tax on a gross income means they pay 6/100,000th of a percent in income taxes.

I didn't say that person making $8/hour for $8/hour skills was enough. I said that if the person only offers $8/hour skills, the problem is with the person offering not the person paying a skill equivalent wage. If that $8/hour isn't enough, that doesn't mean, by default, the payer should pay more because the person offers sucky skills.

There are many decent paying jobs paying more than $8/hour where only a high school diploma is required. I served as an elected commissioner for a local public service entity several years ago. We hired people green in training and trained them. It was non-union and we started at somewhere around $17/hour. The only education required was a high school diploma. At the local technical college, many degree programs are 60 - 66 semester hours. The state's lottery funds a large portion of technical college tuition. A person getting an AA degree can get the entire degree using lottery funds to offset tuition for less than $7500 total investment to them. I just looked on their website and a 16 hour semester or 1/4 the total hour requirement costs $1816 per semester with lottery money. All one has to do to qualify for lottery money is live in the state and take a minimum of 6 hours per semester. If the person lives in the county, it's less per semester because local property taxes go to the school. I pay not much less than their total cost per year for my daughter to attend a private university and she receive over $28,000/year in scholarships.

If the rest of us are expected to invest in low skilled workers, shouldn't they be willing to invest some in themselves?

I don't think that most of the people who went from high school to work in low paid jobs have what to takes to make a success of a 4 year college. program. There are of course exceptions. I've seen people that fight their way through community college and move on to a 4 year school only to find that they can't make it through the harder curriculum and end up with a degree in general studies. I think a better path for people like this is to go for a certificate program or a para-professional degree at community college or university.

 

[Flopper]

Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter.

Yup. I wasn't intending to contradict him.

That being said what is the goal of the philosophy major? Teach at the alma mater or go elsewhere?

Teach elsewhere, mostly likely. As I said, it's a tenured-track program, meaning he's got a decent shot of find a position as a professor at a major university. As a failsafe, he's a hell of a programmer in his own right and has that as a backup plan.

Most philosophy major get advanced degrees in other disciplines. Philosophy is a great field of study because it teaches you think. However, it's not a particular easy major and there is virtually no one looking to hire philosophy majors. There are a number fields that philosophy major do well in, one being law because law requires exactly skills that philsophy teaches, clear logical thinking. Philosophy majors have the highest rate of acceptance in law schools of all discipline.





I have a PhD in geology so understand tenure. Philosophy is an unusual major these days.

Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter.

Yup. I wasn't intending to contradict him.

That being said what is the goal of the philosophy major? Teach at the alma mater or go elsewhere?

Teach elsewhere, mostly likely. As I said, it's a tenured-track program, meaning he's got a decent shot of find a position as a professor at a major university. As a failsafe, he's a hell of a programmer in his own right and has that as a backup plan.

Most philosophy major get advanced degrees in other disciplines. Philosophy is a great field of study because it teaches you think. However, it's not a particular easy major and there is virtually no one looking to hire philosophy majors. There are a number fields that philosophy majors do well in, one being law because law requires exactly the skills that philosophy teaches, clear logical thinking. Philosophy majors have the highest rate of acceptance in law schools of all discipline.

 

[Slyhunter]

My sister needs 600,000 for the cure for Hepatitis C. Her son turned 18 and she no longer qualifies for Medicaid. Should I start a go-fund-me account so you can pay for it?

 

[Arianrhod]

My sister needs 600,000 for the cure for Hepatitis C. Her son turned 18 and she no longer qualifies for Medicaid. Should I start a go-fund-me account so you can pay for it?

The cost is actually around 100K:

How to Pay for Costly Hepatitis C Drugs

Not sure what your nephew's age has to do with your sister's Medicaid eligibiity (I have a hunch you don't either), but there's information at the link about how to pay for the full course of treatment.

 

[Conservative65]

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

The result is the same. It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth. If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying. Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough. In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes. To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

I actually do agree with on taxes. The middle class is not paying enough taxes. However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr, it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family. If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right. However, that presents two problems. Higher education is not cheap. In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers. Far too many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers. That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.

I'm not talking about that family making $30,000, I'm talking about that family making almost double that still not paying taxes. The income I gave was based purely on that family taking the standard deduction, 5 exemptions, and the child tax credit x 3. I followed the 1040 form starting with Line 7 income of $58,249. Line 6d is 5 for the number of exemptions. Reduce that $58,249 by the standard deduction of $12,400 and now the income subject to being taxes is $45,849. Each exemption from line 6d is worth $3,950 or a total of $19,750. Now that $45,849 becomes $26,099 subject to tax. Taxes, using the tax table, is figured on that amount and it's $2,996. Each child gets a tax credit of $1000 for a total of $3000. Credits are an actual dollar amount deduction from the tax liability. When the $3000 is subtracted from the $2996, it's $0 tax liability since the tax form states if subtracting is less than zero you put $0. That the family doesn't pay income taxes on that $58,249 involves only the makeup of the family. If they, for some reason, have other deduction or credits, the amount before they pay income taxes is even higher. If their gross income was $1 more, it puts them in the next line up making their income taxes $4. That $4 tax on a gross income means they pay 6/100,000th of a percent in income taxes.

I didn't say that person making $8/hour for $8/hour skills was enough. I said that if the person only offers $8/hour skills, the problem is with the person offering not the person paying a skill equivalent wage. If that $8/hour isn't enough, that doesn't mean, by default, the payer should pay more because the person offers sucky skills.

There are many decent paying jobs paying more than $8/hour where only a high school diploma is required. I served as an elected commissioner for a local public service entity several years ago. We hired people green in training and trained them. It was non-union and we started at somewhere around $17/hour. The only education required was a high school diploma. At the local technical college, many degree programs are 60 - 66 semester hours. The state's lottery funds a large portion of technical college tuition. A person getting an AA degree can get the entire degree using lottery funds to offset tuition for less than $7500 total investment to them. I just looked on their website and a 16 hour semester or 1/4 the total hour requirement costs $1816 per semester with lottery money. All one has to do to qualify for lottery money is live in the state and take a minimum of 6 hours per semester. If the person lives in the county, it's less per semester because local property taxes go to the school. I pay not much less than their total cost per year for my daughter to attend a private university and she receive over $28,000/year in scholarships.

If the rest of us are expected to invest in low skilled workers, shouldn't they be willing to invest some in themselves?

I don't think that most of the people who went from high school to work in low paid jobs have what to takes to make a success of a 4 year college. program. There are of course exceptions. I've seen people that fight their way through community college and move on to a 4 year school only to find that they can't make it through the harder curriculum and end up with a degree in general studies. I think a better path for people like this is to go for a certificate program or a para-professional degree at community college or university.

When it comes to skills and "what it takes", MOST people are where they are due to themselves.

 

[Conservative65]

Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter.

Yup. I wasn't intending to contradict him.

That being said what is the goal of the philosophy major? Teach at the alma mater or go elsewhere?

Teach elsewhere, mostly likely. As I said, it's a tenured-track program, meaning he's got a decent shot of find a position as a professor at a major university. As a failsafe, he's a hell of a programmer in his own right and has that as a backup plan.

Most philosophy major get advanced degrees in other disciplines. Philosophy is a great field of study because it teaches you think. However, it's not a particular easy major and there is virtually no one looking to hire philosophy majors. There are a number fields that philosophy major do well in, one being law because law requires exactly skills that philsophy teaches, clear logical thinking. Philosophy majors have the highest rate of acceptance in law schools of all discipline.





I have a PhD in geology so understand tenure. Philosophy is an unusual major these days.

Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter.

Yup. I wasn't intending to contradict him.

That being said what is the goal of the philosophy major? Teach at the alma mater or go elsewhere?

Teach elsewhere, mostly likely. As I said, it's a tenured-track program, meaning he's got a decent shot of find a position as a professor at a major university. As a failsafe, he's a hell of a programmer in his own right and has that as a backup plan.

Most philosophy major get advanced degrees in other disciplines. Philosophy is a great field of study because it teaches you think. However, it's not a particular easy major and there is virtually no one looking to hire philosophy majors. There are a number fields that philosophy majors do well in, one being law because law requires exactly the skills that philosophy teaches, clear logical thinking. Philosophy majors have the highest rate of acceptance in law schools of all discipline.

There's a difference between someone being a philosophy major planning to go to law school and being a philosophy major with no further plans for school. The former uses it as a stepping stone as part of their overall goal. The latter gets something they can't use then wonders why no one will hire them. While philosophy majors may be able to think, employers hire people to do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So let me get this straight. You want us all to believe that you're outraged because you claim YOU are paying taxes, and the Waltons aren't?

I didn't say they weren't paying any taxes; I said they got a tax break of $6 billion. Do you understand the difference?

And they STILL paid for most of the taxes, while 46% of the population didn't pay jack shit. Do YOU understand?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter.

Yup. I wasn't intending to contradict him.

That being said what is the goal of the philosophy major? Teach at the alma mater or go elsewhere?

Teach elsewhere, mostly likely. As I said, it's a tenured-track program, meaning he's got a decent shot of find a position as a professor at a major university. As a failsafe, he's a hell of a programmer in his own right and has that as a backup plan.

Most philosophy major get advanced degrees in other disciplines. Philosophy is a great field of study because it teaches you think. However, it's not a particular easy major and there is virtually no one looking to hire philosophy majors. There are a number fields that philosophy major do well in, one being law because law requires exactly skills that philsophy teaches, clear logical thinking. Philosophy majors have the highest rate of acceptance in law schools of all discipline.





I have a PhD in geology so understand tenure. Philosophy is an unusual major these days.

Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter.

Yup. I wasn't intending to contradict him.

That being said what is the goal of the philosophy major? Teach at the alma mater or go elsewhere?

Teach elsewhere, mostly likely. As I said, it's a tenured-track program, meaning he's got a decent shot of find a position as a professor at a major university. As a failsafe, he's a hell of a programmer in his own right and has that as a backup plan.

Most philosophy major get advanced degrees in other disciplines. Philosophy is a great field of study because it teaches you think. However, it's not a particular easy major and there is virtually no one looking to hire philosophy majors. There are a number fields that philosophy majors do well in, one being law because law requires exactly the skills that philosophy teaches, clear logical thinking. Philosophy majors have the highest rate of acceptance in law schools of all discipline.

There's a difference between someone being a philosophy major planning to go to law school and being a philosophy major with no further plans for school. The former uses it as a stepping stone as part of their overall goal. The latter gets something they can't use then wonders why no one will hire them. While philosophy majors may be able to think, employers hire people to do.

Frankly, if my kid said his goal in college was to become a lawyer, I'd smack him in the head. The job market is flooded with lawyers fresh out of school who can't find jobs. Unless that's really his life's dream from kindergarten, I'd be telling him to go into a field that actually gives him a chance of being employed afterward.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you have a point or are you merely going to bleat?

That sound you hear is the echo of the many, many, many others here who have made that same tired "some people don't want to work" speech before you. You at least jazzed it up with the "a friend of mine" variation, but it's still tone-deaf.

And yet it is factual...

Then present some factual data, not "a friend of mine."

An example of factual data:

You mean like this silly boy?


Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
Top earners were the main target of recent tax increases under President Obama, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 (the latest year available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income.

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

On declared income. Have you ever heard of the Cayman Islands?

Also, how you doing with all the info Flopper gave you?

You can dither on about all the imagined ways that rich people aren't paying taxes until your fingers fall off. No one cares. The fact remains that, tax breaks notwithstanding, the rich are still ponying up the money that the government spends, and 46% of the population are getting a tax break called "not paying anything at all".

I'd say the total savings from THAT tax break far outweigh the 6 billion that you keep parroting on about.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, declared income. The bottom 50 percent pay 3%. Of THEIR declared income.

So either you believe poor people have bank accounts in the Caymans or you've never heard of offshore accounts. Not surprising.

So either you believe that the rich are paying the majority of the taxes while somehow not paying any taxes at all or you're an idiot.

No, wait, it's both.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

The result is the same. It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth. If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying. Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough. In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes. To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

I actually do agree with on taxes. The middle class is not paying enough taxes. However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr, it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family. If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right. However, that presents two problems. Higher education is not cheap. In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers. Far too many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers. That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.

Community colleges are a joke to be frank. Well, I'm being harsh there....they are a joke because they are being forced to do the education that the high schools USED to do. Far too many kids going to community colleges are having to enroll in remedial math, English and science classes first, because the education they received in high school was sub par.

It truly is a crime what is being done to these kids. It truly is.

True, but once one is past that - or actually shows up with that education already - community colleges can be very helpful for taking transferable undergrad courses at a much lower cost than at a university.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

The result is the same. It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth. If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying. Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough. In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes. To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

I actually do agree with on taxes. The middle class is not paying enough taxes. However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr, it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family. If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right. However, that presents two problems. Higher education is not cheap. In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers. Far too many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers. That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.

Community colleges are a joke to be frank. Well, I'm being harsh there....they are a joke because they are being forced to do the education that the high schools USED to do. Far too many kids going to community colleges are having to enroll in remedial math, English and science classes first, because the education they received in high school was sub par.

It truly is a crime what is being done to these kids. It truly is.

Unfortunately, I had a job a few years ago, teaching computer and networking classes in the local community college. A couple of months ago I saw one my old students who graduated. She was working at Red Robin as a waitress, same job she had when she was in school. I ask her how she's doing. She said, "OK, just trying to pay off a $4,000 education loan and still trying to get my first job in the field".

If you're going go to a community college, you should get a par-professional degree where there is some local demand or continue your studies at a 4 year school. Without real experience, a community college graduate can't compete graduates from a 4 year schools.

Well, I would definitely have issues with the college at that point. Where I live, the community college is a very effective way to acquire a two-year degree and/or employment certification for a wide variety of fields, and then get a job afterward.

 

[westwall]

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

The result is the same. It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth. If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying. Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough. In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes. To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

I actually do agree with on taxes. The middle class is not paying enough taxes. However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr, it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family. If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right. However, that presents two problems. Higher education is not cheap. In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers. Far too many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers. That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.

Community colleges are a joke to be frank. Well, I'm being harsh there....they are a joke because they are being forced to do the education that the high schools USED to do. Far too many kids going to community colleges are having to enroll in remedial math, English and science classes first, because the education they received in high school was sub par.

It truly is a crime what is being done to these kids. It truly is.

True, but once one is past that - or actually shows up with that education already - community colleges can be very helpful for taking transferable undergrad courses at a much lower cost than at a university.

There are some truly great community colleges out there, however most are being dumbed down just like the high schools. I agree that for kids on a tight budget the CC route is essential. But we really need to stop dumbing the whole system down so that progressives can feel good about themselves. they are screwing the children of this country over.

 

[Arianrhod]

So let me get this straight. You want us all to believe that you're outraged because you claim YOU are paying taxes, and the Waltons aren't?

I didn't say they weren't paying any taxes; I said they got a tax break of $6 billion. Do you understand the difference?

And they STILL paid for most of the taxes, while 46% of the population didn't pay jack shit. Do YOU understand?

Do you have access to the Waltons' financial records? Impressive.

What I understand is that you'll be joining Conservative65 in going door-to-door in working class neighborhoods confiscating the kids' piggy banks so the 46% will pay "their fair share."

I can't seem to convince you people that that's far too labor intensive to yield the results you desire, but you won't listen. Better invest in a good pair of walking shoes.

 

[Arianrhod]

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

The result is the same. It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth. If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying. Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough. In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes. To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

I actually do agree with on taxes. The middle class is not paying enough taxes. However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr, it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family. If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right. However, that presents two problems. Higher education is not cheap. In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers. Far too many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers. That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.

Community colleges are a joke to be frank. Well, I'm being harsh there....they are a joke because they are being forced to do the education that the high schools USED to do. Far too many kids going to community colleges are having to enroll in remedial math, English and science classes first, because the education they received in high school was sub par.

It truly is a crime what is being done to these kids. It truly is.

True, but once one is past that - or actually shows up with that education already - community colleges can be very helpful for taking transferable undergrad courses at a much lower cost than at a university.

There are some truly great community colleges out there, however most are being dumbed down just like the high schools. I agree that for kids on a tight budget the CC route is essential. But we really need to stop dumbing the whole system down so that progressives can feel good about themselves. they are screwing the children of this country over.

Great post - wish I could have rated this more than once!

 

[oldsoul]

Yes, declared income. The bottom 50 percent pay 3%. Of THEIR declared income.

So either you believe poor people have bank accounts in the Caymans or you've never heard of offshore accounts. Not surprising.

So either you believe that the rich are paying the majority of the taxes while somehow not paying any taxes at all or you're an idiot.

No, wait, it's both.

According to the WSJ the top 20% of earners pay 84% of taxes. CNBC says that the "top 1% pay nearly half of fedral income taxes". According to taxfoundation.com, "The Top 1 Percent Pays More in Taxes than the Bottom 90". The Heritage foundation had this to say, "Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes ".

Who's the idiot now....