Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:You can think of it as providing nothing, I look at it as staying productive and out of trouble.

 

Oh? Because college kids don't get into any trouble.....

Quote:Yes, yes, no, no, yes.

 

We have public transportation and your job should provide for your uniform if they require one. As for computers and internet access, I think that kind of thing should be provided for people (it doesn't need to be fancy, but everyone having access to the internet is crucial in today's society) and if someone needs shoes that should be provided along with clothing by the social welfare program.

 

what about people in rural areas with no public transportation? How can the be helpful to society if they can't get to work?

Also, I can think of much better ways to keep people productive than spending $40,000 in education expenses each year for kids to take Into level classes at 200 different community colleges over 30 years.

Quote:I've said it several times. The idea of utopia being achievable is ridiculous so when I keep seeing you use the phrase "true free market" it makes me face palm. A "true free market" is impossible and unsustainable, so when it is used to make a point it really takes away credit from the person believing it is possible.

 

Who's calling for a utopia? I've stated how a free market works when not manipulated by government intrusion picking winners and losers.

Quote:what about people in rural areas with no public transportation? How can the be helpful to society if they can't get to work?

 

Provide for them urban public housing.

 

I understand some antisocial types want to live in the middle of nowhere because they hate anyone being around them, but that's their problem. I don't see having a long drive to work as being a right.

Quote:Also, I can think of much better ways to keep people productive than spending $40,000 in education expenses for kids to take Into level classes at 200 different community colleges over 30 years.

 

Okay, then add that they have to actually be in a degree program to the list of requirements. I'm trying to think of ways to help people, not reasons not to pull help away from people.

You do realize there are many, much cheaper ways, both for the individual and for the government, to educate yourself if you so desire?  The internet and public libraries can give you a better education than any liberal arts degree program can and for a fraction of the cost.  Or does the only way to be educated require having a $100,000+ piece of paper that says you are educated?

Quote:Who's calling for a utopia? I've stated how a free market works when not manipulated by government intrusion picking winners and losers.

 

You. Every time you use the phrase "true free market".

Quote:Well I'm not out there with a radar gun, but speedometers aren't all calibrated the same. Sure some people might drive a little faster or slower than me, but I try to think about things with a margin of error. Still I do see one or two people on a daily basis that seem to be in a real hurry and they're speeding and swerving between lanes and creating dangerous conditions.

 

I don't see them as a cause for letting the air out of everyone's tires.

 

In your world, if I'm donating $1000 per month to charity and reduce it to $500, I'm stealing $500 per month from a charity.  For you it's the same as lifting $500 out of the donation jar.  It's a pretty warped way of thinking.

Quote:You do realize there are many, much cheaper ways, both for the individual and for the government, to educate yourself if you so desire?  The internet and public libraries can give you a better education than any liberal arts degree program can and for a fraction of the cost.  Or does the only way to be educated require having a $100,000+ piece of paper that says you are educated?

 

So how do we verify that someone is actually spending their time becoming educated if they're just doing a lot of reading?

 

Life is an ongoing exercise in education, my simple point was that it's in the national interest to have the most educated populace possible, and the costs of learning get in the way of that currently.

 

Obviously for people that want to raise families and live like upper middle class or wealthier people they won't be able to spend their whole life as a student, but for someone who for some reason can't find their passion (or who simply has a passion for learning) if they want to go from doctorate to doctorate I don't see a problem with that being free and the marginal costs of supporting a student lifestyle being paid for by the society that benefits from a more learned populace.

 

I also think tradeschools for things like welding and pipefitting should be subsidized, too.

Quote:So how do we verify that someone is actually spending their time becoming educated if they're just doing a lot of reading?

 

Life is an ongoing exercise in education, my simple point was that it's in the national interest to have the most educated populace possible, and the costs of learning get in the way of that currently.

 

Obviously for people that want to raise families and live like upper middle class or wealthier people they won't be able to spend their whole life as a student, but for someone who for some reason can't find their passion (or who simply has a passion for learning) if they want to go from doctorate to doctorate I don't see a problem with that being free and the marginal costs of supporting a student lifestyle being paid for by the society that benefits from a more learned populace.

 

I also think tradeschools for things like welding and pipefitting should be subsidized, too.

 

Education is in the nation's best interest, but it's not the nation's responsibility.  There are a lot of things that would be in the nation's best interest, like if everyone had their meals portion controlled and diets dictated. (16 ounce coke anybody?)

 

You don't verify if someone is self-educating.  It's not the government's business if you educate yourself or not with your own time.  If you can't afford college, there are many options to educate yourself and make yourself useful.  One big reason college is so expensive is because of government subsidies.  College has become big business and the more subsidies they soak up, the more they can raise tuition, and in return make more money.

Quote:You. Every time you use the phrase "true free market".

 

You're getting stuck on semantics, using the term "true free market" is to simply illustrate the difference between a free market and what we have now.

Quote:So how do we verify that someone is actually spending their time becoming educated if they're just doing a lot of reading?

 

Life is an ongoing exercise in education, my simple point was that it's in the national interest to have the most educated populace possible, and the costs of learning get in the way of that currently.

 

Obviously for people that want to raise families and live like upper middle class or wealthier people they won't be able to spend their whole life as a student, but for someone who for some reason can't find their passion (or who simply has a passion for learning) if they want to go from doctorate to doctorate I don't see a problem with that being free and the marginal costs of supporting a student lifestyle being paid for by the society that benefits from a more learned populace.

 

I also think tradeschools for things like welding and pipefitting should be subsidized, too.

 

I'm struggling to figure out what you DON'T think should be subsidized......

Quote:I'm struggling to figure out what you DON'T think should be subsidized......

 

Mostly private business and industry, however, we will always subsidize that indirectly by maintaining public infrastructure.

 

Really if anything requires subsidization it should just be a public institution if it's something that has a positive effect on society, and shouldn't be around if it doesn't have a positive effect on society and also can't survive without subsidy.

Quote:I'm struggling to figure out what you DON'T think should be subsidized......

 

I think Oklahomie is trying to say that he thinks that the only thing that a non-rich person should have to pay for is furniture.

Quote:Education is in the nation's best interest, but it's not the nation's responsibility.  There are a lot of things that would be in the nation's best interest, like if everyone had their meals portion controlled and diets dictated. (16 ounce coke anybody?)

 

You don't verify if someone is self-educating.  It's not the government's business if you educate yourself or not with your own time.  If you can't afford college, there are many options to educate yourself and make yourself useful.  One big reason college is so expensive is because of government subsidies.  College has become big business and the more subsidies they soak up, the more they can raise tuition, and in return make more money.

 

Sure, it's not the government's business if they're not paying for it. However, if someone wanted to participate in the subsidized student expenses program I propose there would need to be a means for verifying that they actually are a student and are studying, rather than simply trying to use it as a form of welfare because they don't want to study a trade skill and be brought back into the economy as a worker.

Quote:Here's an article from today that I think can add to the discussion:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/the-1-may-be-richer-than-you-think-research-shows.html'>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/the-1-may-be-richer-than-you-think-research-shows.html</a>


Now, about 40% of the entire pie is going to just 1% of the ultra wealthy. They don't pay taxes hardly at all. You talk about capitalistic democracy when the facts indicate an oligarchy by definition. Money is power, after all, I think we can all agree on that.


I'm all for working hard, but I like working smart better. There are less stressful ways of going about living; other countries are allowing for it now. The "free market" needs--just like any market needs-- people with disposable income, i.e. a strong middle class, to spend their money. If almost half of all the available money is being swirled around Wall Street, benefitting a woefully small percentage of this country, then the economy is never going to come close to reaching its potential value for 99% of the people.

 

Who's pie do you think it is?  Those who have earned it.  They haven't taken it from anyone.  They are also the job creators.

 

Just 1% of the "ultra wealthy" pay a whopping 37% of all federal income tax collected.

 

You're very deficient on the facts in your war on wealth.

Quote:Who's pie do you think it is?  Those who have earned it.  They haven't taken it from anyone.  They are also the job creators.

 

Just 1% of the "ultra wealthy" pay a whopping 37% of all federal income tax collected.

 

You're very deficient on the facts in your war on wealth.

That depends how you look at it. While I don't think things are as bad as the average liberal presents them, I do think an argument can be made that paying your employees as little as possible while amassing every increasing amounts of profits is taking from people. I don't think they should be paid like a skilled worker/professional but I don't think it's out of the question to pay them a living wage. 

Quote:Who's pie do you think it is?  Those who have earned it.  They haven't taken it from anyone.  They are also the job creators.

 

Just 1% of the "ultra wealthy" pay a whopping 37% of all federal income tax collected.

 

You're very deficient on the facts in your war on wealth.

 

Federal income tax is only a part of the total tax pie. The actual tax load is flatter than that once all the taxes that are only a significant part of poor people's income are figured in. (vehicle registration, property taxes, sales taxes, various municipal fees, utilities fees, FICA, etc)

 

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

Quote:Mostly private business and industry, however, we will always subsidize that indirectly by maintaining public infrastructure.

 

Really if anything requires subsidization it should just be a public institution if it's something that has a positive effect on society, and shouldn't be around if it doesn't have a positive effect on society and also can't survive without subsidy.

Public infrastructure is paid for with taxes, is it not?  So, without successful private businesses out there generating wealth and tax revenue for the eternally wealth sucking government, those roads and bridges and other infrastructure wouldn't be necessary and they darn sure couldn't be paid for.  Government doesn't create wealth or tax revenue.  It takes it from those who do. 

 

What are you going to use to subsidize your beloved generic "public institution" if the earners decide they've had enough and they quit?