I'd love to see this system become optional for college students…

Topic by Beer

Beer

Home Forums Money I'd love to see this system become optional for college students…

This topic contains 43 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Anonymousyam  anonymousyam 2 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 44 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #887742
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1224

    Beer writes: Honestly this would be a great way to make sure 50%+ of the next generation is illiterate. Single moms on welfare aren’t going to be paying for their kids to go to school. Like I said in above post, I don’t mind making sure some kid who isn’t even old enough to work yet gets a basic education, why punish them if their parents are losers, but once they are legally adults its time they start doing for themselves.

    Before public schools, we had 80% literacy based on signatures on wills. https://fee.org/articles/did-public-schools-really-improve-american-literacy/

    But I’d be happy to split the difference on this one — just let the parents CHOOSE where to spend the ($13,000 per annum per student) spent in my district, that is, let THEM pick the PRIVATE school and still charge ME the same taxes as now. At least then my money is not being squandered like it is now.

    Where I live the public schools in the poor urban core are a clusterf~~~; the suburban ones, merely bad. In the urban core, everything is dominated by politics. And obsessions with pleasing groups. They built an ‘Africenric’ school for tens of millions of dollars while the district is in academic failure. They constantly pursue the latest educational fad. And have WAY too many administrators and ‘support staff’ relative to private schools. There’s nothing wrong with teaching about the cultures students come from, but this sort of balkanization and groupthink is out of control, at least where I live.

    There isn’t a doubt in my mind I’d be retired earlier and have a higher passive income in retirement if I had the option to have all the money I pay into SS and all the money my employer matches instead just put into my 401k. Unfortunately that isn’t an option because if we had that option too many people would take it and spend it before they ever got to retirement.

    Yes, you are right, what I suggested on allowing opting out, is tantamount to terminating these programs outright, because they would go insolvent, even sooner than they are going to now. Right now social security is good for about 17 years before insolvency/benefit cuts or tax hikes. If you let everyone opt out, it would go insolvent much sooner.

    #887797
    Beer
    Beer
    Participant
    11289

    But I’d be happy to split the difference on this one — just let the parents CHOOSE where to spend the ($13,000 per annum per student) spent in my district, that is, let THEM pick the PRIVATE school and still charge ME the same taxes as now. At least then my money is not being squandered like it is now.

    Yeah, I wouldn’t mind seeing more voucher programs. Private schools generally give a higher quality education. If they can provide competitively priced alternatives it just means public schools need to step their game up.

    However, I also look at it like I have this kid that lives in a unit downstairs from me. He lives with his worthless fat c~~~ of a mother and doesn’t even know who his father is. His mom is making a career off collecting disability and all she does is sit around smoking weed, playing video games, and getting fatter. The only thing I’ve ever seen her do with the kid is scream at him. If that kid wasn’t going to a public school his worthless mother wouldn’t take the time to teach him anything or spend any money to send him to school when she could spend it on herself. The kid already has it bad enough, I don’t see why we need to doom him as an adult by not even giving him a chance as a kid.

    Yes, you are right, what I suggested on allowing opting out, is tantamount to terminating these programs outright, because they would go insolvent, even sooner than they are going to now. Right now social security is good for about 17 years before insolvency/benefit cuts or tax hikes. If you let everyone opt out, it would go insolvent much sooner.

    Wouldn’t bother me any. My generation is already paying a higher tax rate into SS and has a higher retirement age than previous generations, and considering its going to go insolvent, I’ll probably get much less out of it. I’d rather just have it go insolvent sooner on current retirees who left it in its current state rather than be forced to contribute to a system I know is going to end up f~~~ing me over when I retire. I only have so many hours to spend on this earth, I’d rather spend as few of them as possible subsidizing other people’s retirements.

    Its the same deal with the pension I was part of at my last job. When I first joined in 02 it was 80 something % funded. I got my yearly fund statement a couple weeks ago. It dropped from 37% funded to 34% funded. Its going to go belly up before I retire. The union wont trim current retiree benefits even though they are the ones who did some combo of under fund it, mismanage it, or promise themselves too generous of benefits…just kick the can down the road and f~~~ the next guy, that is the American way. I called up a couple months back to request a lump sum buyout figuring even if they low balled me big time it would still have 30 years to be invested and grow and work out to be better than eventually ending up with a joke payment from the federal pension insurance program, but apparently its such a scam pension they don’t even offer pension buyouts.

    The “we’re all in this together” mantra makes me sick these days, because every c~~~ sucker that says it is saying it because they think they stand to get more out of the system than they put in.

    #887814
    +1
    Sandals
    Sandals
    Participant
    3163

    The purpose of school is not to educate the youth. The purpose of school is to make sure that not only the youth does not get educated, but that the youth will NEVER be able to be educated – that they can never wake up from the brainwashing. Any man who sends his children to school is a lost cause. He is throwing his children away to be eaten by the monster. His children will have their souls cut out and discarded forever. His children will not recognize him.

    #887818
    Sandals
    Sandals
    Participant
    3163

    no collateral on the loan

    There most certainly is.

    Not only is there no collateral, but they GENERALLY aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy, either

    Bing!!! There’s your collateral! It’s called indentured servitude. YOU are the collateral. Now when you graduate, you HAVE to get a job, and you HAVE to pay taxes, because you can never discharge the debt.

    #887883
    +1
    Monk
    Monk
    Participant
    12328

    The purpose of school is not to educate the youth. The purpose of school is to make sure that not only the youth does not get educated, but that the youth will NEVER be able to be educated – that they can never wake up from the brainwashing.

    Exactly.

    Every ignorant, entitled, resentment filled unemployable is a guaranteed Socialist vote.

    #887978
    Anonymousyam
    anonymousyam
    Participant
    4605

    . People who do things to keep their loans minimal or avoid loans all together aren’t the ones complaining about their loans because they didn’t borrow stupid amounts of money.

    The idea is that College is now forced to be used on Loans for the majority of People and getting a degree (no matter how good or bad) is not indication on whether or not you will get a Job after College especially in 2008 where the People who were well Educated had to take up Minimum wage Jobs due to the fact of the Economy being s~~~ with it being predicted that another Recession is coming due to the Policies of Donald Trump causing it (low taxes on the rich, deregulation ever growing Wealth inequality etc) and by Wealth inequality i am not bitching that CEO’s and Workers should be paid the same but it is common for Workers to get 7.25 an hour and the CEO to make many Millions a year to where the Worker cannot make ends meet for one Person.

    And this is a result of a lack of Unionization (aka the death of Unions), the lack of a Living wage and the lack of high taxes on the Rich which would force them to invest more into their Companies or be taxed at a higher rate (like what occurred from the 1930’s till 1981).

    how does it become good for society for Anonymousyam to get that same communications degree with me and you paying for it?

    Did i or did i not state there are multiple ways to go about this? of course you don’t need it to be free for every degree but in the fields which improve our Nation the most you should have free or reduced cost College to where People are on a equal level of getting an Education despite their Wealth. Even if it is just in Medicine, Science, Engineering, Education etc then it should be free or at least avaliable to where Students do not need to take out loans which takes decades to pay off if they do so.

    Everyone else opts out. Its how all these systems work

    It depends on what system of free college you mean as if it was free for all (even bulls~~~ degrees) 3 out of 4 would benefit and if it was for the more important degrees 2 out of 4 would benefit. In both systems College is still free and Education is still promoted.

    he has no real life experience, he’s probably never held a full time job,

    Do you mean full time benefits or full time work? as i have worked in places without benefits for full time hours for 8 to 12 hour shifts 40 plus hours a week. It is part of the reason i am now a Leftist, without it i doubt i would be as left as i am today.

    because he hasn’t had the pleasure of watching 1/3 of his gross go to the government yet.

    It depends on the benefit i and others receive and you are talking to someone in a high tax State (which subsidizes other States), if it means i have to pay into the overbloated Military which commits bulls~~~ offensive wars, or the NSA which spies on US Citizens or Trump’s border wall we both should be able to agree as that is complete bulls~~~. But if my tax dollars go to Education, Healthcare, Programs which help People and other beneficial things then i am fine with it.

    These days though I’m fairly certain that among my peers there is a strong correlation between having a low income and negative net worth and being a liberal

    One thing you fail to mention is Conservatives are liars who’s Policies the typical Liberal turning Conservative would still not support. The actual Conservative Policies are not very popular so they cloak them or lie about them so earned benefit programs become entitlements or they scream about the deficit when a Democrat is in office but drive it up when they are in office and use the deficit as an excuse to reform the programs (aka cutting them).

    Most People who turn into Conservatives buy into the idea of it being the Traditional/Religious party who wants to lower taxes but when you look at the facts Conservatives are fond of raising taxes on the middle class/poor while cutting them for the rich (for example the Trump tax cuts as a sunset provision on the tax cut for those making 70 or less a year but not one on the rich).

    Now onto the next guy.

    we had 80% literacy based on signatures on wills.

    The thing is Education is more about just being able to read and even if it was 80 percent who could read that still leaves 20 percent who could not and those 20 percent were in far worse situations due to their lack of Education (just as those without Educations are today). Even if 90 percent of People could read if we abolished Public Education that is not a reason to do it and it is still a f~~~tarded idea.

    that is, let THEM pick the PRIVATE school and still charge ME the same taxes as now

    No as that would mean Government funds would funnel into Religious Schools which is a violation of the first amendment but even if it was not (Secular Schools) that would still drain away the funding for Public Schools and put Education onto the Free market.

    Right now social security is good for about 17 years before insolvency/benefit cuts or tax hikes. If you let everyone opt out, it would go insolvent much sooner.

    Which is another retarded idea to do and akin to letting People choose whether or not they pay taxes and the way to fix the insolvency of Social Security would be to end the cap on the collected income for it (it is about 100k right now which is the limit). Take away the cap and there would be less problems with it down the line.

    Just an east coast asshole who likes to curse, If you get offended by words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, bitch or any racial slurs then you just scroll down.

    #887988
    Narwhal
    narwhal
    Participant

    The idea is that College is now forced to be used on Loans for the majority of People and getting a degree (no matter how good or bad) is not indication on whether or not you will get a Job after College especially in 2008 where the People who were well Educated had to take up Minimum wage Jobs due to the fact of the Economy being s~~~ with it being predicted that another Recession is coming due to the Policies of Donald Trump causing it (low taxes on the rich, deregulation ever growing Wealth inequality etc) and by Wealth inequality i am not bitching that CEO’s and Workers should be paid the same but it is common for Workers to get 7.25 an hour and the CEO to make many Millions a year to where the Worker cannot make ends meet for one Person.

    Dude, it’d be rather helpful if you used some punctuation. And it looks like you’re actually blaming the 2008 economy on Donald Trump.

    But whatever. As far as K-12 public education, I don’t have a big problem with it. I used to think about this a lot before I had kids. Why am I paying a school tax when I don’t have kids? It made sense that living in a society where everyone has a basic education benefits me. I also don’t like the idea of all those left with nothing to do all day long. I’d rather see a voucher system, and I see now reason why the tax amount should be based on the market value of my property, but it is better than the alternative.

    I would make some changes though. I’d cut out the last 2 years of school. I’d do this because kids seems have already established whether they are going to get in to drugs and other trouble or whether they are thinking about their future. I don’t see the point of forcing kids that don’t give a crap to be subjected to school anymore. As well, 16 year olds can get their licence and be fully employed. I think most people who say they learned more about life from working during those then they did from going to school. This would mean also mean that these ‘kids’ would have an extra 2 years to consider what direction they wanted their lives to go, as well as save up some money for college.

    Ok. Then do it.

    #888031
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1224

    Monk writes: Every ignorant, entitled, resentment filled unemployable is a guaranteed Socialist vote

    Monk: I’d say the more formal education one has, the more likely they are to be progressives. http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/ — I attribute this to professors and Universities, being left-leaning.

    The correlation of political affiliation with income is interesting also, but a bit more complicated: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/does-your-wage-predict-your-vote/264541/

    No as that would mean Government funds would funnel into Religious Schools which is a violation of the first amendment but even if it was not (Secular Schools) that would still drain away the funding for Public Schools and put Education onto the Free market.

    So, is it also a violation of the first amendment to NOT TAX churches? Certainly an interesting question. The vast majority of the day in religious schools, is NOT spent on religious instruction. Unless we’re talking about a Madrassa, haha. I’m fine just ratioing hours spent on religious instruction per week, to total instruction hours, and public funds only going to the school in that ratio. But, you would soon find, once private schools are eligible for $12 – $15,000 per student per annum, many new *secular* ones will open.

    Draining away funding would make the remaining public schools more competitive and effective — they’d have to improve their performance, or go out of business. Now, the WORST that can happen to a public school, is to be taken over by the State.

    Which is another retarded idea to do and akin to letting People choose whether or not they pay taxes and the way to fix the insolvency of Social Security would be to end the cap on the collected income for it (it is about 100k right now which is the limit). Take away the cap and there would be less problems with it down the line.

    Steal more of other people’s money, or abandon the system in favor of individualism, personal responsibility, and savings? I’ll vote for individualism and personal responsibility.

    But if my tax dollars go to Education, Healthcare, Programs which help People and other beneficial things then i am fine with it.

    Before government comprised 37% of economic output, we had charities — civil societies, and fraternal organizations. I think this was a better system. This way YOU have the ability to spend and save on what YOU want, instead of forcing your priorities on others, through voting. The problem is what YOU think helps people may be quite different from what I want to spend on. So if you simply tax far less, we can EACH spend on what we want — education, healthcare, etc — for us and/or for others.

    No one is forcing you to be a ‘worker’ — you can start your OWN business. Recessions, and the business cycle, will occur independent of which Jackasses we elect to public office. Though high government spending, deficits, stimuli, intervention, regulations, subsidies, and other market distortions exacerbate and extend them. So I’m not seeing either major party as particularly ‘pro-business’ and certainly not ‘pro-economic growth’.

    As for degrees, nobody has a ‘right’ to a job. When I got out of school, the job market was s~~~. You have to sell yourself and acquire marketable skills.

    I have no problem with ‘wealth inequality’ and am not jealous of people making more than me.

    Nobody ever talks about ‘contribution inequality’.

    #888042
    +1
    Beer
    Beer
    Participant
    11289

    Steal more of other people’s money, or abandon the system in favor of individualism, personal responsibility, and savings? I’ll vote for individualism and personal responsibility.

    I don’t know if you noticed…but all anonymousyams “solutions” boil down to the common denominator of other people paying more with the end result of him benefiting from it.

    The problem is what YOU think helps people may be quite different from what I want to spend on. So if you simply tax far less, we can EACH spend on what we want — education, healthcare, etc — for us and/or for others.

    This is pretty much the conclusion I have come to for most things as well. How stupid can one be to bitch about the government spending money on x, y, and z, and then turn around and demand they spend more on a, b, and c. It doesn’t matter what x, y, and z, or a, b, and c are for you, because for someone else they are going to be different. The only way to make sure we all are more happy with how our money is spent is for us all to have more control over how our money is spent, which means giving less to the government to spend for us.

    Just one example…but look at Planned Parenthood. When the right gets power they try to limit Planned Parenthood and cut funding. When the left gets power they ramp up funding and reduce restrictions on Planned Parenthood. My entire life I’ve been listening to this debate and watching the pendulum swing back and forth. Who wins in a system like this? We just end up with a lot of divisiveness and a lot of people p~~~ed off because other people want to tell them how to spend their money when they would rather see it spent differently. Well f~~~…what if the government just wasn’t involved with Planned Parenthood? If you think its a great organization go ahead and donate to it. If not, just ignore them and donate money to causes you support.

    With that being said, I realize we need some government. I’m not opposed to all taxation. I just think its a matter of how much is too much. Right now government spending as a % of GDP is as high as its ever been outside of peak spending during WWI and WWII. Once you get people talking about “free college for all” and “free healthcare for all,” WTF are we going to end up with government spending well over 50% of GDP? The American Revolution was started mainly over taxes on tea and sugar…and now here we are just about 250 years later with idiots arguing that government spending being around 37% of GDP isn’t enough? A bloody revolution was fought over far less. My how stupid some of us have become.

    #888058
    +2
    Beer
    Beer
    Participant
    11289

    I have no problem with ‘wealth inequality’ and am not jealous of people making more than me.

    A rich guy isn’t a burden to me at all just because he’s rich. Someone who soaks up far more in government benefits than they will ever pay into the system is a burden to me. Its interesting though, that to many, the rich have become the enemy.

    Besides…’wealth inequality’ is a pretty pointless metric. All it really ends up measuring is the average person’s financial IQ, which sadly is low. When I look at my coworkers, I’m looking at a group of people all making six figures. When we talk about net worth, some of them are in debt, and others are millionaires. I see broke guys hopping in their Mercedes and BMWs to drive home to their McMansions, and millionaires hopping in their Corollas and Sentras and driving home to their 900sqft raised ranch even though their incomes are very similar. Why should I care about ‘wealth equality?’

    We see professional athletes in the news who made more in a few years than most people will earn in a lifetime…yet they are broke a year after they stop playing. Then we have this guy…

    https://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/09/heres-how-a-janitor-amassed-an-8m-fortune.html

    Nobody ever talks about ‘contribution inequality’.

    Well…Mitt Romney did by accident…and then he lost the election lol. Its just a testament to how f~~~ed up our government is that Romney’s “47%” pay no federal income taxes and politicans don’t want to do anything to change that because its career suicide and they all know it. In fact the democrats cater to these folks by promising them free stuff. It gets more votes to demonize the 1% and appeal to all the leeches than it does to tell all the leeches they are part of the problem. In the end though…that isn’t improving us as a nation. Subsidizing stupidity and poor life choices just leads to more stupidity and poor life choices.

    If I had a magic wand and could make changes to the tax system, I’d no doubt make some changes, but the reality is when I look around at financially struggling people I know, they almost all share at least one of the following traits…

    1. single parent who chose a s~~~ty deadbeat partner
    2. problems with drugs/alcohol
    3. can not work due to legit medical issues and have no family or support structure to help out other than the government

    1 and 2 are entirely preventable and 100% caused by poor life choices. We’d be able to help the 3s out more if we didn’t allocate so much towards the 1s and 2s. I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here, but that is the problem with subsidizing stupidity. We’ll give the world to a single mom or an opiate addict…but the veteran that got both legs blown off…yeah f~~~ that guy. Unless he develops a drug habit…then we can start giving him more free s~~~.

    While I’m on a rant here, I’ve got a friend that is an EMT. He was telling me, that like a lot of places obviously, they were having problems with opiate overdoses around here…people would overdose and their “friends” wouldn’t call for help because they were scared of getting arrested. A few people had died that had someone called for help they would have been able to save them. Now, if there is an OD and a call to 911 and the police and EMTs show up to the scene, they are not allowed to arrest any of them for drugs, they have to turn a blind eye and act like they saw nothing illegal while responding to such calls. Pretty much they show up, shoot the person up with narcan, ask if they want to take a (obviously tax payer funded) ambulance ride to a (obviously tab payed by tax payer) hospital as they can’t force them into the ambulance, and they leave. A couple days later, same call, same house, lather, rinse, repeat. I can’t even imagine how much taxpayer money we waste playing this ridiculous game, and in the end most of them are just going to end up in jail or dead from an overdose anyhow. It would be more cost effective to just start flagging houses. The first time they call from that address, whatever, go play the game. Maybe even be a good sport and send a social worker over the next day just to see if any of them want to voluntarily go to rehab. The second time someone calls from that address for an overdose, just wait 12 hours then go pick up the body.

    #888063
    +1
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1224

    A rich guy isn’t a burden to me at all just because he’s rich. Someone who soaks up far more in government benefits than they will ever pay into the system is a burden to me. Its interesting though, that to many, the rich have become the enemy.

    Yes, the rich have so much become the Enemy, that the Democratic presidential candidates, are falling over themselves to see which of them can propose the most draconian ‘wealth tax’.

    I like your proposal for emergency services for opiate addicts.

    #888113
    Narwhal
    narwhal
    Participant

    So, is it also a violation of the first amendment to NOT TAX churches? Certainly an interesting question.

    Churches are not tax exempt because of religious affiliation, but because they are non-profit organizations. If it was due to religion, then Hobby Lobby and Chic-fil-a would be tax exempt. That said though some of these mega-churches are causing issues for local government, as they take up much of the local economy (mostly property) yet don’t contribute to local tax based services.

    Besides…’wealth inequality’ is a pretty pointless metric. All it really ends up measuring is the average person’s financial IQ, which sadly is low. When I look at my coworkers, I’m looking at a group of people all making six figures. When we talk about net worth, some of them are in debt, and others are millionaires. I see broke guys hopping in their Mercedes and BMWs to drive home to their McMansions, and millionaires hopping in their Corollas and Sentras and driving home to their 900sqft raised ranch even though their incomes are very similar. Why should I care about ‘wealth equality?’

    Wealthy inequality, but not in the way most people seem to think it does. The money isn’t the issue, it’s the power that comes with the money that’s the real problem. The ability to influence politicians and control markets and corporations is what I’m concerned about. I don’t care about the millionaires as they really don’t any more power than I do. The typical solution of overtaxing the rich to give to the poor doesn’t really solve anything as it does nothing to break up the power of the 1%. I wouldn’t even really worry so much about individuals, I’d work on the corporations they control. It used to be that corporations would get so big they would prevent any competitors, and anti-trust laws were put in place to combat that. Now, corporations don’t look to gain full control of market, they look to be an influential player in several markets. Being in several markets gives them leverage over competitors, stifling competition, reducing wages, etc. If companies like Amazon, Google, Apple, Disney, etc were not allowed to broken apart into the different market segments they compete in, it would limit the ability of few to wield so much power through the corporations they control. What would Jeff Bezos be if he was just the CEO of Amazon shopping, not the CEO of shopping, AWS, tech hardware, media streaming, media content, grocery chain, delivery service, and everything else Amazon gets their hands in. Would other retailers have a realistic chance of competing?

    Ok. Then do it.

    #888139
    +1
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1224

    Churches are not tax exempt because of religious affiliation, but because they are non-profit organizations. If it was due to religion, then Hobby Lobby and Chic-fil-a would be tax exempt. That said though some of these mega-churches are causing issues for local government, as they take up much of the local economy (mostly property) yet don’t contribute to local tax based services.

    I get what you are saying. But I lived in a rural area for a number of years. Everybody ran a church with under 10 ‘members’, often mostly family. It was basically tax evasion — paying themselves parsonage allowance to cover their own rent/mortgages, etc.

    Secular charities must still report their income and financial structure; churches are exempt from that also. So there are a lot of special exemptions and perks associated with churches, that don’t exist for other NPO’s.

    Though it’s an outlier, if the ‘Church’ of $cientology isn’t about making money, I don’t know what is — yet it is also tax exempt.

    It used to be that corporations would get so big they would prevent any competitors, and anti-trust laws were put in place to combat that.

    When I look at a company like Standard Oil, even when it controlled 90% of the market, prices were low. It was an efficiency monopoly. That is a pretty extremist view, I know. But I concede, the larger the company, the more political influence it exerts. If Amazon were smaller, it would likely not be able to negotiate postal rates or exert the political influence to do so. But it’s hard to say if that would simply mean fewer total packages sent in the mail, and even more financial problems for the USPS. But it certainly has a competitive advantage because of these negotiated rates.

    I would argue the best way to limit political influence of all kinds, whether Unions, Corporations, or any other special interests, is to limit the size and scope of government action and decentralize it. If total government spending were, say, only 10% of economic output, I think you would see the bottom drop out of political contributions, and much diminished lobbying.

    #888167
    Sandals
    Sandals
    Participant
    3163

    another Recession is coming due to the Policies of Donald Trump

    Trump has a policy?

    So, is it also a violation of the first amendment to NOT TAX churches?

    There no such thing as a bill of rights. You have no rights. Nobody does. This isn’t 1830. The idea of Rights in America is a joke today.

    Before government comprised 37% of economic output, we had charities

    You’re probably not aware of is, but 97% of all studies are completely made up statistics. And that’s been absolutely proven.

    No one is forcing you to be a ‘worker’ — you can start your OWN business.

    Have you heard of ever hear of what happened to the silver backed Liberty Dollar business? Sure, you can sell furniture or cars. But try starting a bank. Or a competitive court. Or a Law practice. Or a telecom company. Or a radio station. Or a psychology practice. Or a medical practice. Oh wait, let me guess… You think doctors know about medicine, just because they have a medical degree…

    #888285
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1224

    There no such thing as a bill of rights. You have no rights. Nobody does. This isn’t 1830. The idea of Rights in America is a joke today.

    Going through them,

    (1.) Freedom of religion, speech, and press: Still intact — very little government meddling — indeed, religious freedom INCREASED as States disestablished Colonial Churches, some as late as the early 1800’s (Connecticut 1818, Massachusetts 1833, and New Hampshire 1819).
    (2.) Right to Bear Arms: Eroded; registration and other restrictions in place. Let’s call it 50%.
    (3.) Quartering of soldiers: Still in place, not really applicable under current circumstances
    (4.) Unreasonable search & seizure: Somewhat in place in your house, not so much in your vehicle. Also extensive government surveillance on the civilian population in place (phone calls, etc), so I’d call this one 50% eroded.
    (5.) Protection of rights of life, liberty, and property: I’d call this one 80-90% — asset forfeiture and other practices cause me to subtract from 100%
    (6.) Rights of accused in criminal trials: I’d give this 80%; trials are not ‘speedy’.
    (7.) Rights in Civil Cases: I’d give this 90%
    (8.) Excessive bail, fines, and punishments: 100% — we coddle criminals in the U.S.A.
    (9.) Rights kept by the people: Maybe 20% — there are laws prohibiting so much, that did not exist 200 years ago
    (10.) Undelegated rights to the States: Again, so many Federal laws, so I’d give this maybe 20 or 30% intact

    Where do you stand on the 10?

    So I’d say we still have quite a few rights in the CIVIL sphere; economically, not so much, with property taxes, excessive regulations, income tax, sales tax, etc. Economic freedom has been grossly eroded; civil freedom, not to the same extent.

    Or a medical practice. Oh wait, let me guess… You think doctors know about medicine, just because they have a medical degree…

    I have a State-sanctioned license to practice engineering, but I’m against government licensing. All it does is increase costs. Sure, it enriches license holders — they can charge more for services, because the supply is artificially limited by the licensure process, fees, and educational and other requirements.

    I am at the extreme end on freedom; I believe you should be able to purchase ANY drug you want in any quantity without a prescription. We have licenses for everything nowadays. You cannot braid hair without a license in the area I reside in! I’d say most doctors know medicine, but in many cases nurse practitioners could deliver the same services, as much lower costs. Let the private sector issue certifications and the consumer decide which certifications they care about, instead of mandating certs and arresting people who practice without them.

    I am familiar with Liberty Dollar and the government overreach. The regulatory State has greatly limited economic freedom.

    #888713
    Sandals
    Sandals
    Participant
    3163

    Going through them,

    uh… yeeeeaaaaahhh…

    Surrre… So says the guy with the avatar of the governmental body that invented LSD and experimented it on unsuspecting people, spread feminism, killed Kennedy, and is the home of all the “black projects”.

    But we have rights.

    The mental gymnastics you have to go through to live in the fantasy world you live in is impressive.

    Sorry buddy, there is no such thing as rights. You want to see who really owns your home? Try not paying your property taxes.

    #888716
    Sandals
    Sandals
    Participant
    3163

    Wait a minute, I just read thourhg your post more closely. So you are agreeing with me? That right in the US today is a complete joke?

    #888719
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1224

    Going through them,

    uh… yeeeeaaaaahhh…
    Surrre… So says the guy with the avatar of the governmental body that invented LSD and experimented it on unsuspecting people, spread feminism, killed Kennedy, and is the home of all the “black projects”.
    But we have rights.
    The mental gymnastics you have to go through to live in the fantasy world you live in is impressive.
    Sorry buddy, there is no such thing as rights. You want to see who really owns your home? Try not paying your property taxes.

    As I said, you have significant CIVIL or PERSONAL freedoms — your ECONOMIC rights are what have been severely eroded by the Leviathan State.

    Real property rights have eroded significantly in the United States. Average annual property taxes are about $2,200 for homeowners; average house value about $220,000, so in a single lifetime, you are buying your house back from the government. I’ve been paying taxes on my primary residence since my early 20’s. Accounting for time value of money and inflation, I will have bought my primary residence back from the government in about 60 years (based on what I would earn in interest saving the ‘tax payment’ each year). So at these confiscatory tax rates, we’re just renting our property from the government. Looked at another way, at the high income tax levels, my combined state+local+municipal+sales tax burden of ~$50,000 per year, is such that in only 4 years of total taxes, I could purchase my ~$200,000 house over again. I regard this as very oppressive taxation.

    No, the federal gubbermint/CIA did not ‘invent’ LSD. A Swiss chemist working for Sandoz Labs in the late 1930’s was the first to synthesize it. The CIA certainly conducted secret drug trials in the 1950’s, in which soldiers and the public were given LSD in the ‘MK Ultra’ program. During the Korean War, captured ‘brainwashed’ American POW’s confessed to using germ warfare, refused being repatriated, etc — a public relations disaster. So government was expanded so we could do the same — scientific ‘brainwashing’. But of course, the POW’s were simply tortured — deprived of food, sleep, forced to stand, confined in small spaces, etc. So there was no secret drug involved. This is a another good example of how wars lead to expansions of government power and spending. And how secret programs are often not even properly vetted or scrutinized — i.e. LSD DIDN’T WORK for the intended purpose. But it was a good excuse to expand government, and run secret, illegal, unethical drug trials (MK Ultra).

    My icon is a joke based upon being called an infiltrator/agent of the CIA. Certainly not an endorsement of the Agency.

    #889729
    Anonymousyam
    anonymousyam
    Participant
    4605

    Dude, it’d be rather helpful if you used some punctuation. And it looks like you’re actually blaming the 2008 economy on Donald Trump.

    I said to cause another recession not that Trump caused the old one (Trump like Policies in George W Bush caused the 2008 Recession) along with the deregulation of Bill Clinton (Glass Stegall died under Clinton).

    I’d rather see a voucher system, and I see now reason why the tax amount should be based on the market value of my property

    Disagree as i don’t believe Education should be a Free market based on profit but also with Religion in Schools Government funding cannot go towards that.

    Draining away funding would make the remaining public schools more competitive and effective

    Not gonna happen as the rich kids will get their Private Schools and those who cannot afford School get the Public School unless you want to force the Government to pay for Religious Schools (which vouchers would do). Even if Religious instruction is a minority of the day at the Schools it is still the Government promoting one Religion over another.

    Steal more of other people’s money, or abandon the system in favor of individualism, personal responsibility, and savings? I’ll vote for individualism and personal responsibility.

    Which ignores the facts that wages are going down to where People cannot afford to retire and Private Social Security would have People running away with others money (aka they bought into a bulls~~~ scam not knowing and lose it all or the Economy hits the s~~~ and they lose it all).

    Of course Personal Responsibility still exists under my system, People will still be failures even if they don’t die in the streets but rather i want the system to be better for more People then just a minority of them.

    No one is forcing you to be a ‘worker’ — you can start your OWN business. Recessions, and the business cycle, will occur independent of which Jackasses we elect to public office

    Actually yes since i need to Work in order to obtain the Capital needed to secure a loan and even have a chance of having a Business but even if i own a Business the fact is Working is something i need to do to run it and when it comes to Work i don’t have a problem with it but a problem with Poverty wages, no Union, no benefits etc that way my position along with Millions like me (in the fact we Work) will be better.

    Recessions occur due to bad Policies such as Deregulation of Wall street and the Banks, cutting taxes on the rich and shortages of supplies (like the Oil Embargo in the 70’s which contributed to Stagflation).

    As for degrees, nobody has a ‘right’ to a job. When I got out of school, the job market was s~~~. You have to sell yourself and acquire marketable skills.

    So we need to Work to survive but we don’t have the right to a Job. So People can starve in the streets in case of the s~~~s even if they want to work they cannot?

    Now onto the next guy

    but all anonymousyams “solutions” boil down to the common denominator of other people paying more with the end result of him benefiting from it.

    The Policies i promote benefit not only me but the overwhelming majority of People rather then the 1/10 of the 1 percent (which Libertarian/Conservative Policies support) and also these Policies continue going on far after i would get the benefit from them so let’s say 2022 is when i got the benefit from free College, well the People of 2032, 2042, 2052, 2062 and onward would benefit from it as well despite me getting it decades before so in 2042 my taxes will be paying for the free College of those in that era and i am fine with it.

    How stupid can one be to bitch about the government spending money on x, y, and z, and then turn around and demand they spend more on a, b, and c

    Actually that is a reasonable position as promoting Tax dollars to be spent on far better things then Military or foreign aid, or Weapons deals, or cutting taxes on the rich etc. So i am paying taxes (State and Local now Federal if i make enough money to qualify) since i pay the taxes i want them to go to what Objectively are better things for the People.

    If not, just ignore them and donate money to causes you support.

    The debate is really easy as more Birth Control and Sex Education equals fewer Kids needing Welfare so to save money you do spend on Planned Parenthood either wise the Kids born from the lack of it will need Government assistance (which is more expensive then Condoms or Pills).

    Why should I care about ‘wealth equality?

    As today we are in a Society where the CEO makes hundreds if not thousands the times of the Workers while back in more reasonable times it was about 25 to 35 percent times more then the Workers (so yes still richer then Workers just not to the biggest degree) and by having our Society you make it worse for the Economy.

    “47%” pay no federal income taxes

    Which they make up for by paying State and other Local taxes (like Sales tax, Alcohol and Tobacco Taxes etc). To imply the poor don’t pay taxes is bulls~~~ and when it comes to your statement there i am guessing you are going along the lines of increasing taxes on the poor (which Republicans do) and less taxes on the rich because of us poor moochers who only pay State and Local states.

    Pretty much they show up, shoot the person up with narcan, ask if they want to take a (obviously tax payer funded) ambulance ride to a (obviously tab payed by tax payer) hospital as they can’t force them into the ambulance, and they leave

    The fact is it is Tax funded regardless as enjoy trying to collect the money from someone who overdoses on Heroin.

    Just an east coast asshole who likes to curse, If you get offended by words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, bitch or any racial slurs then you just scroll down.

    #889833
    Beer
    Beer
    Participant
    11289

    Not gonna happen as the rich kids will get their Private Schools and those who cannot afford School get the Public School

    You mean…just like it is now? The difference with vouchers is those fancy private schools before more affordable for more people.

    Think about it…maybe your town pays 11,000 per student per year. The fancy private school charges 15,000 for a year. Maybe you can’t afford 15,000 a year to send your kid, but you get an 11,000 voucher and now you only need to pay 4,000 out of pocket.

    Does it take money away from public schools? Yes, but they have less students, so who cares. There are towns near me that have public high schools with 2,000+ students, and towns where the public high schools have around 300 students. The bigger schools get more government funding, but it doesn’t make them any better.

    unless you want to force the Government to pay for Religious Schools

    My friend at work is as atheist as they come. His wife is Jewish. They send their kid to a Catholic high school. Why? Its a better school. On average their students score higher on standardized tests like state testing and SATs, get more scholarship money, and go on to graduate college at a higher rate. The average class size is smaller, and if they have a student who is a disruptive little asshole they just kick them out permanently, unlike public schools where they just have to deal with it.

    Its not like just because its a Catholic school they spend 4 hours a day in bible study and all their teachers are 70 year old nuns who hit them with rulers or creepy old priests who want to pedo them in the bathroom. In fact, let’s talk about their teachers. If they get a teacher that consistently under performs, do you know what happens with that teacher? They get fired. Now since you are blindly pro union, what happens with s~~~ty teachers in public schools who don’t deserve their job? They don’t get fired because of the teachers union. The quality of the instructors at private schools, whether affiliated with religion or not, is simply higher when they are allowed to weed out those who consistently can not perform to expectations.

    At the end of the day if private schools aren’t selling a better product people aren’t going to pay for their kids to go there.

    Even if Religious instruction is a minority of the day at the Schools it is still the Government promoting one Religion over another.

    No it doesn’t. There are private schools affiliated by all major religions as well as not affiliated with any religion at all. A voucher program would be able to be used at any of them so long as students meet or exceed state standards.

    Recessions occur due to bad Policies such as Deregulation of Wall street and the Banks

    I bet you don’t even realize the federal government forced banks to make sub-prime loans in an attempt to help poor people own homes. Problem is if they can’t pay the loan back, they can’t pay it whether the loan was mandated by the government or not. Deregulation isn’t always bad, and over regulation can be even worse.

    The Policies i promote benefit not only me but the overwhelming majority of People rather then the 1/10 of the 1 percent (which Libertarian/Conservative Policies support) and also these Policies continue going on far after i would get the benefit from them so let’s say 2022 is when i got the benefit from free College, well the People of 2032, 2042, 2052, 2062 and onward would benefit from it as well despite me getting it decades before so in 2042 my taxes will be paying for the free College of those in that era and i am fine with it.

    Nope, it would only benefit people who run up the most debt, and people who have the least marketable degrees. It just f~~~s everyone else over.

    The debate is really easy as more Birth Control and Sex Education equals fewer Kids needing Welfare so to save money you do spend on Planned Parenthood either wise the Kids born from the lack of it will need Government assistance (which is more expensive then Condoms or Pills).

    I’m not arguing for or against Planned Parenthood, I’m just pointing out that its a debate that has been on the national level and swaying back and forth from left to right for longer than I’ve been alive. I’m sorry if you are too ignorant to see that.

    As today we are in a Society where the CEO makes hundreds if not thousands the times of the Workers while back in more reasonable times it was about 25 to 35 percent times more then the Workers (so yes still richer then Workers just not to the biggest degree) and by having our Society you make it worse for the Economy.

    Oh look…lazy kid who wants everyone to pay for his stuff wants to blame his failures on someone else being successful. Nice victim mentality.

    To imply the poor don’t pay taxes is bulls~~~

    I clearly said federal income taxes. Learn to read.

    The fact is it is Tax funded regardless as enjoy trying to collect the money from someone who overdoses on Heroin.

    Lol you truly are stupid if you think that has anything to do with wanting to collect tax money from heroin addicts.

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 44 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.