Sheezh, I thought the only legitimate function of government was to promote WAR. That's what CAD tells me, so it must be true. This "general welfare" stuff is just some liberal syrup those liberals-Jefferson and Madison and Monroe-poured over the Preamble to make it sweet. Not really the meat of the constitution you know? Just ignore that stuff. Find the place where it says the Senate is supposed to give the powers of a dictator to presidents so they can blow the crap out of the rest of the world. That's the important part. Don't let your tiny little self get distracted by that stuff all those French folks thought was trendy.
-Robert
-Robert
Well actually, we don't want any labor, "we" prefer to outsource because it shields us from liability issues. This is also in no small part why jobs get outsourced to other countries. That stalwart friend of the Democrat..the trial lawyer of america, is part of the reason jobs are leaving U.S. shores and going abroad...part of the hidden tax the trial lawyers put on everything we do...and i'm not kidding about this.
as for beating up on Dufman, I'm guessing your probably an o.k. kid, and means well, but the title of your post "Bush needs to go", followed by the "not doing a thing to help me out" statement is not a very attractive position to take. Why do you believe the other 75% of the population who will never attend/finish college share your views? I tried to raise this point earlier, but i don't think you really appreciated this point..There are an infinite number of "good deeds" that merit our attention, and tax dollars..however, we have a finite amount of resources. how should we distribute our resources, and what should our tax rates be? these are political questions that are resolved by the electorate. as such, you need to understand that in many cases (not all), if the majority doesn't share your point of view, your out of luck.
Now, while you believe your college education is at the top of the list,
the single mother with kids is concerned about health care.
the elderly retired individual is concerned about the costs of their medicine.
the engineer at NASA is concerned about getting another "big" project funded so he/she has a job
the researcher at NIH wants grants approved AND funded so they can come up with the next cure for cancer...
you get my drift here....
if you take another year to finish college because you have to work and save up some money..nobody dies, nobody loses their home, it effects only you at this point...and college students to boot, don't vote as much as some other age groups....YOU ARE A MINORITY. Get use to it buddy, because when you finally get a good paying job..you will still be a minority, and the majority will still have their agenda, and it will still be different from your's..but it will include taxing the bejesus out of you....
my prediction..you destiny is to become a conservative!
remember, I too was a Moonbeam, when i was in college....
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
LOL how did you pay fo medical school? Federally guaranteed loans perhaps? I don't know how much the cost was back in the bronze age but today any med school is 25+K a year not counting books room and broard and impossible to work...similar for many other programs. And without these programs you stiffle opportunity.
This as usual is pure hogwash from the right who suck the government tit more than anyone while complaning about paltry sums spend on education and welfare.
My only qualm with AFDC is they don't have to work for it but other than that, every dime the governemnt spends IS a form a welfare from Defense to Roads to the SEC. At least those going to school are doing something for it.
Here's another way of looking at it:
"
?LESS GOVERNMENT? AND ?CHEAP LABOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
?Less Government? is the central defining right-wing slogan. And yes, it?s all about ?cheap labor?.
Included within the slogan ?less government? is the whole conservative set of assumptions about the nature of the ?free market? and government?s role in that market.. In fact, the whole ?public sector/private sector? distinction is an invention of the cheap-labor conservatives. They say that the ?private sector? exists outside and independently of the ?public sector?. The public sector, according to cheap-labor ideology, can only ?interfere? with the ?private sector?, and that such ?interference? is ?inefficient? and ?unprincipled?
Using this ideology, the cheap-labor ideologue paints himself as a defender of ?freedom? against ?big government tyranny?. In fact, the whole idea that the ?private sector? is independent of the public sector is totally bogus. In fact, ?the market? is created by public laws, public institutions and public infrastructure.
But the cheap-labor conservative isn?t really interested in ?freedom?. What the he wants is the ?privatized tyranny? of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is ? you guessed it -- ?cheap labor?.
For proof, you need only look at exactly what constitutes ?big government tyranny? and what doesn?t. It turns out that cheap-labor conservatives are BIG supporters of the most oppressive and heavy handed actions the government takes.
Cheap-labor conservatives are consistent supporters of the generous use of capital punishment. They say that ?government can?t do anything right? ? except apparently, kill people. Indeed, they exhibit classic conservative unconcern for the very possibility that the government might make a mistake and execute the wrong man.
Cheap-labor conservatives complain about the ?Warren Court? ?handcuffing the police? and giving ?rights to criminals?. It never occurs to them, that our criminal justice system is set up to protect innocent citizens from abuses or just plain mistakes by government officials ? you know, the one?s who can?t do anything right.
Cheap-labor conservatives support the ?get tough? and ?lock ?em up? approach to virtually every social problem in the spectrum. In fact, it?s the only approach they support. As for the 2,000,000 people we have in jail today ? a higher percentage of our population than any other nation on earth -- they say our justice system is ?too lenient?.
Cheap-labor conservative ? you know, the ones who believe in ?freedom? ? say our crime problem is because ? get this ? we?re too ?permissive?. How exactly do you set up a ?free? society that isn?t ?permissive??
Cheap-labor conservatives want all the military force we can stand to pay for and never saw a weapons system they didn?t like.
Cheap-labor conservatives support every right-wing authoritarian hoodlum in the third world.
Cheap-labor conservatives support foreign assassinations, covert intervention in foreign countries, and every other ?black bag? operation the CIA can dream up, even against constitutional governments, elected by the people of those countries.
Cheap-labor conservatives support ?domestic surveillance? against ?subversives? ? where ?subversive? means ?everybody but them?.
Cheap-labor believers in ?freedom? think it?s the government?s business if you smoke a joint or sleep with somebody of your own gender.
Cheap-labor conservatives support our new concentration camp down at Guantanamo Bay. They also support these ?secret tribunals? with ?secret evidence? and virtually no judicial review of the trials and sentences. Then they say that liberals are ?Stalinists?.
And let?s not forget this perennial item on the agenda. Cheap-labor conservatives want to ?protect our national symbol? from ?desecration?. They also support legislation to make the Pledge of Allegiance required by law. Of course, it is they who desecrate the flag every time they wave it to support their cheap-labor agenda. [Ouch! That was one of those ?hits? you can hear up in the ?nosebleed? seats.]
Sounds to me like the cheap-labor conservatives have a peculiar definition of ?freedom?. I mean, just what do these guys consider to be ?tyranny?.
That?s easy. Take a look.
?Social spending? otherwise known as ?redistribution?. While they don?t mind tax dollars being used for killing people, using their taxes to feed people is ?stealing?.
Minimum wage laws.
Every piece of legislation ever proposed to improve working conditions, including the eight hour day, OSHA regulations, and even Child Labor laws.
Labor unions, who ?extort? employers by collectively bargaining.
Environmental regulations and the EPA.
Federal support and federal standards for public education.
Civil rights legislation. There are still cheap-labor conservatives today, who were staunch defenders of ?Jim Crow? ? including conspicuously Buckley?s ?National Review?. Apparently, federal laws ending segregation were ?tyranny?, but segregation itself was not.
Public broadcasting ? which is virtually the only source for classical music, opera, traditional theatre, traditional American music, oh yes, and Buckley?s ?Firing Line?. This from the people constantly braying about the decay of ?the culture?. The average cost of Public Television for each American is a whopping one dollar a year. ?Its tyranny I tell you. Enough?s enough!?
See the pattern? Cheap-labor conservatives support every coercive and oppressive function of government, but call it ?tyranny? if government does something for you ? using their money, for Chrissake. Even here, cheap-labor conservatives are complete hypocrites. Consider the following expenditures:
150 billion dollars a year for corporate subsidies.
300 billion dollars a year for interest payments on the national debt ? payments that are a direct transfer to wealthy bond holders, and buy us absolutely nothing.
Who knows how many billions will be paid to American companies to rebuild Iraq ? which didn?t need rebuilding three months ago.
That?s all in addition to the Defense budget ? large chunks of which go to corporate defense contractors.
Is the pattern becoming clearer? These cheap-labor Republicans have no problem at all opening the public purse for corporate interests. It?s ?social spending? on people who actually need assistance that they just ?can?t tolerate?.
And now you know why. Destitute people work cheaper, while a harsh police state keeps them suitably terrorized.
For a short primer on the importance of a strong public sector, see:
?The Public Sector and Private Fortunes?.
"
Link
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Really? If you look at GDP growth and unemployment, you'll notice something. The best economic times are toward the end of Democratic administrations -- not the beginning. Democrats inherit weak economies and strengthen them. Republicans inherit strong economies and run them into the ground. Even Reagan?s economy was strictly mediocre compared to Truman?s, Johnson?s and Clinton?s.
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/bogusideas.htm
"Consider these unemployment numbers. This is the unemployment rate on the last day of the Truman, Johnson and Clinton administrations, respectively. 2.5%, 3.5% 4.5%. Under Clinton's presidency, unemployment dropped below 5 percent for the first time in 27 years. Yes, I kow about Jimmy Carter, he left with 7.5%, the same percentage he came in with. Now look at unemployment on the last day of the Hoover, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, and BushI adminstrations. 25%, 6.5%, 7.5%, 5.5%, 7.5%. For Hoover thats twenty five not two point five. Only Reagan left office with lower unemployment than he inherited, and his finishing unemployment rate pales beside that of Democratic administrations. Pitiful isn't it?"
No grants, no loans, same with college, no grants, no loans....we're not all parasites...don't be so fast to assume others are just like you....
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
So how'd you do it and how much was it?
Parasite? well there you have it folks, people on the extreme right believe in the ancient world-view of social hierarchy. Those who can afford college should be the only ones allowed to go, ability, equality, and social justice mean nothing and if you're looking for it you're a "parasite."
Yes, anyone who goes to college without loans and grants comes from a rich family.
Why, me, I come from the elite of the elite! My dad was an engineer. My mother a medical technologist. My grandparents, whom made sure I had a silver spoon in my mouth and helped with college, were a high school teacher and a statistics professor. While I didn't choose medical school, I spent 2 years in a pilot school, which was almost as expensive
Of course, the democracts have established that the middle class ends at $50k per year, $100k for married couples. My rich conservative family must have it's income and inheritances taxed down so the middle class can grow.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I doubt it. Most republicans are millionaire wannabe's while sucking the government tit. He may be indeed a millionaire...most HS make well above 500K however he still uses democratic institutions to make his money. From Medicare to the collective insurance system faught for by labor/democrats. I'd just like to know how much he'd make in those "Free market" havens like algeria (no Income tax/no SS/no medicare) or Russia (13% top rate). Well I already know...wealth always comes from the bottom up not the other way around. More people that have wealth/opportunity the more succesful everyone is.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
Truman: started with FDR and WWI and continued with the Korean conflict - government deficit spending to support the War Machine needs.
Johnson: inherited Vietnam conflict and escalated it - government deficit spending to support the War Machine needs plus the great Society giveway.
Clinton came out lucky, however, the economy was heading into the toilet when he left office. Bush initially inherited for the first year what Clinton left him with.
The government in general will spend when it can, borrow when it needs to and very seldom return what it does not need.
The plans that it has for a budget are forcasted based on current projections (rosey). Most times, the responsible people leave before they actually have to handle the end result (face the music).
It takes more than 1 year to swing the economy around, it is so big that there is no quick fix.
Therefore I stand by my statement
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
You didn't say whether you received any financial aid (including loans) or other government subsidies to help pay for your education.Originally posted by: alchemize
Yes, anyone who goes to college without loans and grants comes from a rich family.
Why, me, I come from the elite of the elite! My dad was an engineer. My mother a medical technologist. My grandparents, whom made sure I had a silver spoon in my mouth and helped with college, were a high school teacher and a statistics professor. While I didn't choose medical school, I spent 2 years in a pilot school, which was almost as expensive
Of course, the democracts have established that the middle class ends at $50k per year, $100k for married couples. My rich conservative family must have it's income and inheritances taxed down so the middle class can grow.
Granted, one can find examples of middle class families sending children to school without outside assistance, especially if it's a state school and the family has only one child going to college. I don't think it happens very often, and it happens a lot less often now than it did 20 years ago when school was much less expensive. I'm afraid I remain skeptical that someone of modest means could pay for medical school without any help. It's simply too expensive, at least in the U.S.
Please understand I have no problem with people getting help paying for school costs, from every possible source: family and friends, private sources, work-study, and the government. Higher education is a great investment for all concerned ... including Uncle Sam. Note that many countries fully subsidize college because they recognize the tremendous value of well-educated citizens. It is a competitive advantage in a global market. Just ask India.
I do have a problem with people who did get help trying to deny that help to others. I find it hypocritical and more than little mean-spirited. (Heartsurgeon's "parasite" slur demonstrates that nicely.) That doesn't mean Uncle Sam needs to give everyone a free ride. It does mean (IMHO) we should be extremely generous in supporting and subsidizing higher education. It truly is a good investment.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I'm sure they did.
LOL EVEN if they did'nt recieve any finanical aid they in fact DID by attending any state school which is both state and federally subsidzed.
Hell even the private universities get billions in funding from the governemnt in the form of research grants which susidizes education.
:::YAWN::: same ole story. I did it on my own (which they did'nt) so can you ( while neglecting inflation, unemployment numbers, and cost of education today). Preacy muthfrarkers arn't they much like william "let it ride" bennet and Rush "lock THEM up" Limbaugh.
No loans or financial aid. I didn't mention that. Parents/grandparents paid for room, board, classes. I worked for any money for car, clothes, beer, etc.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You didn't say whether you received any financial aid (including loans) or other government subsidies to help pay for your education.Originally posted by: alchemize
Yes, anyone who goes to college without loans and grants comes from a rich family.
Why, me, I come from the elite of the elite! My dad was an engineer. My mother a medical technologist. My grandparents, whom made sure I had a silver spoon in my mouth and helped with college, were a high school teacher and a statistics professor. While I didn't choose medical school, I spent 2 years in a pilot school, which was almost as expensive
Of course, the democracts have established that the middle class ends at $50k per year, $100k for married couples. My rich conservative family must have it's income and inheritances taxed down so the middle class can grow.
Granted, one can find examples of middle class families sending children to school without outside assistance, especially if it's a state school and the family has only one child going to college. I don't think it happens very often, and it happens a lot less often now than it did 20 years ago when school was much less expensive. I'm afraid I remain skeptical that someone of modest means could pay for medical school without any help. It's simply too expensive, at least in the U.S.
Please understand I have no problem with people getting help paying for school costs, from every possible source: family and friends, private sources, work-study, and the government. Higher education is a great investment for all concerned ... including Uncle Sam. Note that many countries fully subsidize college because they recognize the tremendous value of well-educated citizens. It is a competitive advantage in a global market. Just ask India.
I do have a problem with people who did get help trying to deny that help to others. I find it hypocritical and more than little mean-spirited. (Heartsurgeon's "parasite" slur demonstrates that nicely.) That doesn't mean Uncle Sam needs to give everyone a free ride. It does mean (IMHO) we should be extremely generous in supporting and subsidizing higher education. It truly is a good investment.
I would concur with you that good education is something well worth supporting with tax dollars. What constitutes good, what needs reform, is a topic for another thread.
However, would suggest that the tone of the OP was not lamenting the current state of education, the difficulty of getting loans or aid, etc. Rather, his beef was that George is spending money on the millitary instead of on him. He probably would have been better off to represent how he was personally taking responsibility for his education funding. But if he did that, well then he'd be a conservative and wouldn't have chirped "where's my money huh?"
IMHO, this mentality, from both sides of the aisle, is what has the US in such tremendous debt. PS: Bowfinger I agreed with you on the Janet Jackson thread just the other day...did you catch that? The end times are nearing, I'm starting to agree with Flyermax2k3
PPS: Heartsurgeon is a crotchety old, well, Heartsurgeon. I felt it necessary to comment on the "rich family" comment because most often the "rich family" is the one that forgoes the multiple SUVs and big screen TV's, saves wisely and pinches pennies. I would say that even I could find MUCH more room to save money, I live modestly, but still in relative luxury to my income.
See post below, I didn't have loans or grants. I did go to a state school. Responsible conservative families find ways to defeat inflation (investing), unemployment (ever improving job skills and continuing education), and the cost of education (see #1 & #2). My "rich" family already is investing in education IRA's and 529's for my children. I live a lower standard of living than I could for this reason.
Of course, it would be so much easier to tell them when they hit 18 "go vote yourselves some money to go to school". Like your hero good ole "Free school for all" Kuchinichchch or however you spell it
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Listen to yourself. Thats called a grant pay for by tax payers..liberals from both parties enabled you to get an education and now that you have it you wish to take that opportunity away. Sad indeed.
To give you an idea how much GRANTS are given I went to a communist school too. Calpoly SLO, tutition was ~500 every quarter x 3 quarters in a year..=$1500... Stanford on the other hand, cost at the time, $21,000 a year. I got at least a $19,500 GRANT each year by attending the state school.
Wether you relise it or not w/o governemnt providing education for it's masses we'd move twards surfdom/illiteracy again like the dirty little farmers we were prior to new deal. The only question is how much.. I think all school should be paid by the tax payer. Including privates like harvard.
Hell I think we should do away with money all together. People are inherenty modivated by excellece not money so it would work out fine. But conservatives are the cynics. They're the one's that say that humans are greedy, lazy bums some of whom are only motivated by profit and being "over the barrel" of starvation. Conservatives are the one's who say that poverty is an insoluable problem, that democratic governments "can't do anything right" notwithstanding the experience of the "liberal" economies of the twenty richest nations on earth.
looks like zebo conveniently forgot bush inherited a sagging economy from clinton...i wonder how that happened? chronic selective amnesia again?
i also see no takers to the democrat challenge, here it is again:
name one tax increase initiated by dems that did not gain the vast majority of it's generated money from the MIDDLE class...name just ONE..if you can.
now im off to play some call fo duty for a couple of hours
i also see no takers to the democrat challenge, here it is again:
name one tax increase initiated by dems that did not gain the vast majority of it's generated money from the MIDDLE class...name just ONE..if you can.
now im off to play some call fo duty for a couple of hours
I never said that--typical liberal ploy...stating as fact something that was never posited, and then arguing how wrong-headed that attitude is.
no, i believe that educational grants, loans, federal programs, all that stuff is o.k., just not the whining that "Bush isn't helping me out MORE, so off with his head" I do object to the secondary "fact" that you are trying to slip into the post, that it is impossible without federal assistance to attend college..that's b.s.
how did i pay for school...jobs, savings, and family money....oh by the way, my parents came to this country in the 1950's without any money, they saved up for their kids education, we lived frugally, i remember licking "Green House Stamps" and pasting then in a book when we had a grocery sack full of those darn things we traded them in for my first bicycle. Now, when i got married and started having kids..i was hardly making "big bucks"..try $25,000/yr. as a resident. well, the wifey starting saving for the kids college the day each one was born. When we had more financial means, we paid for a cousin to attend Pepperdine College (that wasn't cheap), whose single parent disabled mom didn't have the means to pay for. You liberals claim the moral high ground..based on spending other people's money...i'll claim the moral high ground based on what I have actually done....and "parasite", well if the shoe fits....
You should consider moving to one of these countries, where they have already implemented your ideas
Country "A"
Country "B"
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I did, and perhaps that's why it's a hot issue for me. I had some of everything, help from family, scholarships, grants, loans, and working 20 to 30 hours per week all through school. My folks had almost no money. As I think I mentioned before, my dad was a cop all his life, yet by the time I was about 25 or 26, I was earning more than he did after over 30 years. We don't pay law enforcement what they're worth.
Anyway, even with all the aid I got, it wasn't enough. I was accepted at Cal Tech, but they could only offer partial aid. I had to pass because there wasn't enough other aid available (even with work-study, etc.) that I could afford to go. Water under the bridge, nobody "owed" me a free ticket to Cal Tech, and I still got a great education at another, less-expensive school. However, I was fortunate because I qualified for more aid than most people. I know many weren't that fortunate, and there is less assistance available today.
I agree the OP didn't present himself well, but I don't think it justified the flurry of self-righteous replies he got. There are constructive ways of answering his comments. I hope no one here would be so rude and so mean-spirited in person. Give the kid a break. The real world will shatter his hopes and dreams soon enough. <half-grin>I would concur with you that good education is something well worth supporting with tax dollars. What constitutes good, what needs reform, is a topic for another thread.
However, would suggest that the tone of the OP was not lamenting the current state of education, the difficulty of getting loans or aid, etc. Rather, his beef was that George is spending money on the millitary instead of on him. He probably would have been better off to represent how he was personally taking responsibility for his education funding. But if he did that, well then he'd be a conservative and wouldn't have chirped "where's my money huh?"
Yes I did. Troubling times indeed. What's the Bill Murray line from Ghostbusters, something like, "fire and brimstone, cats and dogs living together, ..."?
He certainly can be. I meant my comment somewhat tongue-in-cheek, even had a "wink" under it at first, but after I reread his "parasites" comment, I didn't want to let him off the hook. Frankly, I'm still skeptical he made it through medical school without any outside assistance unless his family is one of those immigrant rags-to-riches tales. I could be wrong, it happened once before.
Oh well, cheers to all. Best wishes to Dufman.
What the hell? We're parasites because we needed a loan?
Commander, any comment on Zephyr106's response to your 'ONLY responsibility' post?
Q]What the hell? We're parasites because we needed a loan? [/quote]That's not what i said.
the definition of parasite is as follows:
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
I made the point that I am not a parasite...
you can decide for yourself if you fit the definition, it's not my call.
the definition of parasite is as follows:
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
I made the point that I am not a parasite...
you can decide for yourself if you fit the definition, it's not my call.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Shadow what are you talking about? The top rate was since the new deal 91% then Kennedy modestly cut it to 73% and Reagan slashed it to 28%. Who do you think made up the difference while the governemnt exploded? Thats right middle/upper middle class wage earners in the form of higher taxes and more regressive taxes like sales, SS etc. Capital gains/trust fund babies/hiers to fortunes always got a free ride, but even more so under Republicans http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=8695. Again the middle class has had to take up the slack. And who's been presiding over this shift of burden?
In the 40 years ago corporations paid 50% of the tax burden, today it's 10%. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203
Again the middle class had to take up the slack.
I won't even get into the hidden taxes on the middle class from pro-conservative issues like globalization which sends good paying jobs to third world dictitorial shit-holes to big corporate favorism (free land, tax deferments, non bidding for FEC licences etc) sufficed to say it's not fair to the budding businessman.
Spend some time here and learn who shifted the burden. It was'nt the democrates. I'll ask you a similar question after you educate yourself. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?topic2id=20
------------------
HS
Country "A" has the peso
Country "B" has the won
Nice try but dictatorships can never be socialist, because workers do not own or control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do.. Every proposal I remeber from poly sci was the most democratic from of governemnt I've ever heard of. Were you not only get to vote on political leadership but on your boss even, probably the last place in America that is still a dictatorship.
I know you and your ilk try and marginalize the term, and wrap Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism, Communism, Marxism and Stalinism is a nice cozy taboo closet but they are very different. Here is someones take on it a hell of a lot smarter than us.
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm">Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein
</a>
Note I don't personally agree with any pure form just democratic capitalism. And if the original poster wants to vote to get more school money from you thats his right, no? He'll confront thew same problem after he marticulates into the workforce.
In the 40 years ago corporations paid 50% of the tax burden, today it's 10%. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203
Again the middle class had to take up the slack.
I won't even get into the hidden taxes on the middle class from pro-conservative issues like globalization which sends good paying jobs to third world dictitorial shit-holes to big corporate favorism (free land, tax deferments, non bidding for FEC licences etc) sufficed to say it's not fair to the budding businessman.
Spend some time here and learn who shifted the burden. It was'nt the democrates. I'll ask you a similar question after you educate yourself. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?topic2id=20
------------------
HS
Country "A" has the peso
Country "B" has the won
Nice try but dictatorships can never be socialist, because workers do not own or control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do.. Every proposal I remeber from poly sci was the most democratic from of governemnt I've ever heard of. Were you not only get to vote on political leadership but on your boss even, probably the last place in America that is still a dictatorship.
I know you and your ilk try and marginalize the term, and wrap Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism, Communism, Marxism and Stalinism is a nice cozy taboo closet but they are very different. Here is someones take on it a hell of a lot smarter than us.
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm">Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein
</a>
Note I don't personally agree with any pure form just democratic capitalism. And if the original poster wants to vote to get more school money from you thats his right, no? He'll confront thew same problem after he marticulates into the workforce.
I totally understand your point of view. You did not need the help of the government so your way of thinking is that "if i did it, so can you". Maybe you had a rich family, maybe you saved up money and were very frugal, either way, you accomplished your goal. But for me, my only option was to go to college right out of highschool and go to college. This was not expected of me, but i choose to do it, because i wanted to be the first of my family to graduate from a 4 year college and get that diploma so everyone can be proud of me, especially myself. I know i would not be able to achieve thoes goals at a young age with out the help of federal money. And i believe that what i am doing is a good thing. So naturally my views are based around that. More federal loans, grants, whatever for college students, so they can have the chance to make something out of themselves. When i get older, i am sure my expectations of what the government should do will change with my life style. I know it is impossible to please everyone, I just think more can be done domestically.
Bush is EXCELLENT at building policy overseas, but domestically he sucks.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter