My concern with college education is that a bachelor's degree is already worth roughly what a high school degree was worth fifty years ago. If things continue on in this fashion, a bachelor's degree is going to be worth its weight in toilet paper--and I'm not even talking about nice toilet paper, I'm talking about the sandpaper they give you in Motel 6. Instead of trying to funnel every American kid through a four-year school that may or may not result in them being a $120k tax sink that waits tables for a living, encourage more kids to go to trade schools and two-year programs that might not qualify them to run a company, but it will qualify them to make a very good living over the long term in a blue-collar field that's got all of its baby boomers retiring, and very few Gen-X'ers or millennials interested in replacing them.

 

Marco Rubio, is that you? You pretty much just nailed his views on education.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJBVJdrW2kg&feature

---

Safe to assume services are not taxed at all under this plan?

Correct

As it should be.

 

Marco Rubio, is that you? You pretty much just nailed his views on education.

If I were Marco Rubio, I probably wouldn't be spending my time on the Jaguars' message board. That said, he and I actually do agree on quite a bit. There are scenarios in which I'd vote for him and feel good about doing so. The deal breakers for Rubio, in my mind, are his desire to extend the NSA mass surveillance program indefinitely, and his emphasis on attacking same sex marriage and abortion. Honestly, if he had come out against the NSA and expressed a desire to tear it down and start over with an emphasis on Constitutional rights above paranoia, he'd probably have locked up my vote long ago regardless of his social policy views. I would just have a very hard time voting for a guy who believes that my civil liberties ought to be subjugated by the state in the name of "homeland security".

---

As it should be.


If I were Marco Rubio, I probably wouldn't be spending my time on the Jaguars' message board. That said, he and I actually do agree on quite a bit. There are scenarios in which I'd vote for him and feel good about doing so. The deal breakers for Rubio, in my mind, are his desire to extend the NSA mass surveillance program indefinitely, and his emphasis on attacking same sex marriage and abortion. Honestly, if he had come out against the NSA and expressed a desire to tear it down and start over with an emphasis on Constitutional rights above paranoia, he'd probably have locked up my vote long ago regardless of his social policy views. I would just have a very hard time voting for a guy who believes that my civil liberties ought to be subjugated by the state in the name of "homeland security".

The social issues arnt even deal breakers for me. To me social issues that SCOTUS has already ruled on are nothing more than wedge issues brought up to rally the base and to distort the importance of other issues. II like rubio a lot and I think in 4 or 8 years he will be fleshed out enough for me to vote for him.

---

The social issues arnt even deal breakers for me. To me social issues that SCOTUS has already ruled on are nothing more than wedge issues brought up to rally the base and to distort the importance of other issues. II like rubio a lot and I think in 4 or 8 years he will be fleshed out enough for me to vote for him.

I've got to see a reversal on the NSA and civil liberties. He'd only be my first choice in any election if he placed civil liberties on a pedestal above "homeland security".

---

 

 

My concern with college education is that a bachelor's degree is already worth roughly what a high school degree was worth fifty years ago. If things continue on in this fashion, a bachelor's degree is going to be worth its weight in toilet paper--and I'm not even talking about nice toilet paper, I'm talking about the sandpaper they give you in Motel 6. Instead of trying to funnel every American kid through a four-year school that may or may not result in them being a $120k tax sink that waits tables for a living, encourage more kids to go to trade schools and two-year programs that might not qualify them to run a company, but it will qualify them to make a very good living over the long term in a blue-collar field that's got all of its baby boomers retiring, and very few Gen-X'ers or millennials interested in replacing them.

 

 

Your point is agreeable and disagreeable at the same time. It depends what your major is. I majored in Computer Science and make a good living. Someone who majors in an "athlete" major will certainly have trouble finding a great job.

 

Plus, to become a doctor/lawyer/nurse, etc you need a 4 year degree anyway.

 

Having said that, you are correct in your trade school comment. If you know from the beginning that school just isn't for you, then I totally agree in a trade school.

---

Your point is agreeable and disagreeable at the same time. It depends what your major is. I majored in Computer Science and make a good living. Someone who majors in an "athlete" major will certainly have trouble finding a great job.

 

Plus, to become a doctor/lawyer/nurse, etc you need a 4 year degree anyway.

 

Having said that, you are correct in your trade school comment. If you know from the beginning that school just isn't for you, then I totally agree in a trade school.

These routes, especially in the medical sector, entail delayed earnings and compounding debt (surpassing $300k+) - with the mandatory 4 years of professional school, plus a possible residency that could span from 2-7 years...

 

That being said, the opportunity cost is different for people with different interests and backgrounds. Giving up the majority of your 20's to set yourself up later on in life is a tough pill to swallow sometimes. 

 

I remember seeing a study where the standard 4-year graduate entering the workforce out-earns the person pursuing the professional degree by almost 10-15 years, including retirement accounts, debt repayments, and whatnot.

 

I definitely agree with your last statement though. I feel like the college degree has become somewhat "diluted" while the cost to obtain one has sky-rocketed dramatically here in the US.

---

Your point is agreeable and disagreeable at the same time. It depends what your major is. I majored in Computer Science and make a good living. Someone who majors in an "athlete" major will certainly have trouble finding a great job.

 

Plus, to become a doctor/lawyer/nurse, etc you need a 4 year degree anyway.

 

Having said that, you are correct in your trade school comment. If you know from the beginning that school just isn't for you, then I totally agree in a trade school.

Oh, definitely, if someone wants to go to a four-year school or has a passion for a career course that requires a four-year degree, I would always encourage them to investigate and pursue that option first.

 

Making a trade school more appealing by offering 100% tuition reimbursement, deeply discounted student loans, room & board expenses while there, whatever to get more kids into blue collar professions that will die off without them, particularly kids who show no ambition towards a four-year degree, is a great bit of common sense imo.

---

He's already said he's going after the 1%. I don't agree with the man on everything, but if you look at the numbers, his plan won't work without increasing taxation on the billionaire class.

You do realize that if he goes after the 1% like he's pandering to you now, that still doesn't tell us how he's going to pay for anything?  The country is nearly $20 trillion in debt, with unfunded liabilities that are almost $124 trillion.  Even if he took every dime these evil 1%ers you and the rest of the progressives covet so much earn, his promises to turn the United States into a socialist utopia are laughable. Their income wouldn't make a single dent in reducing the deficit this country is running, and it would only be made worse by the accelerated spending to give you all that free stuff you're hoping to get.  This country would turn into Greece over night.  If you like that, move there.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You do realize that if he goes after the 1% like he's pandering to you now, that still doesn't tell us how he's going to pay for anything?  The country is nearly $20 trillion in debt, with unfunded liabilities that are almost $124 trillion.  Even if he took every dime these evil 1%ers you and the rest of the progressives covet so much earn, his promises to turn the United States into a socialist utopia are laughable. Their income wouldn't make a single dent in reducing the deficit this country is running, and it would only be made worse by the accelerated spending to give you all that free stuff you're hoping to get.  This country would turn into Greece over night.  If you like that, move there.

 

I still don't understand how he plans to tax the assets and wealth the 1% has and stores in offshore banks. Nor do I understand how he plans to tax the corporations doing the same.

---

Not to sound crass, but would we really want someone that old making decisions that affect our country?

---

Not to sound crass, but would we really want someone that old making decisions that affect our country?

Reagan was 74 when he took office.

---

I only have a problem with the income tax. The State doesn't have a right to my income before it ever reaches my hands. Tax consumption all you want, tax property, tax however you want but when you take it before I see it, you've eliminated my choice and now are using the monopoly of force the state holds.

 

ALL income taxes in ALL forms constitute theft and any politician compliant with any form of income tax is a thief. 

 

Sometimes I come on here just to read this kind of stuff. It's cute - so Back to the Futureish.

 

Keep pushing that 1880s rhetoric, it'll get you real far. Were you there when Moses brought forth the tablets telling us what The State can and can't do? I'd prefer the people's representatives to decide rather than the political absolutists, but that's just me.

 

But the image of a mad bomber-type writing furiously on a legal pad, page after page, is very cool and a major part of the attraction of the Politics threads.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Sometimes I come on here just to read this kind of stuff. It's cute - so Back to the Futureish.


Keep pushing that 1880s rhetoric, it'll get you real far. Were you there when Moses brought forth the tablets telling us what The State can and can't do? I'd prefer the people's representatives to decide rather than the political absolutists, but that's just me.


But the image of a mad bomber-type writing furiously on a legal pad, page after page, is very cool and a major part of the attraction of the Politics threads.

If your going to throw around baseless insults at least attempt to get the time frame correct the "temporary" income tax didn't come around until after 1910.

---

Sometimes I come on here just to read this kind of stuff. It's cute - so Back to the Futureish.

 

Keep pushing that 1880s rhetoric, it'll get you real far. Were you there when Moses brought forth the tablets telling us what The State can and can't do? I'd prefer the people's representatives to decide rather than the political absolutists, but that's just me.

 

But the image of a mad bomber-type writing furiously on a legal pad, page after page, is very cool and a major part of the attraction of the Politics threads.

And what's so 1880's about the notion that the government should be taxing what you spend, not what you earn? I think it's not only a fair system, but one that would ultimately go a long way towards improving the overall financial health of Americans. It would teach us to control our spending more in ways that we don't now, leaving more money in American pockets. The difference could be made up in corporate taxation.

 

The biggest argument that I see thrown around is that it's disproportionately unfair to the working class, and to that I say that a provision should be built in allowing some of the tax to be refunded each year based upon income and spending. That bridges the percentage gap between the person making $40k per year and spending $35k of it, and the person making $1M per year and spending $600k of it. If the percentages even out in the end, it's fair to everyone.

---

If your going to throw around baseless insults at least attempt to get the time frame correct the "temporary" income tax didn't come around until after 1910.

 

I'm not insulting you. You are who you are. This is an anonymous message board. The posts here have absolutely no value or purpose - for entertainment purposes only. And your persona is entertaining.

 

That's what it is, right? An image you wish to project. I wouldn't want to see it change at all. Coming across like Ted Cruz on a bad day. Ted "A Tyrant Under Every Bed" Cruz isn't an image that I wouldn't go for, but it works for you.

 

Lighten up while you still can. We're all going to soon be under the thumb of The Man very soon - at least according to most of these posts.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

And what's so 1880's about the notion that the government should be taxing what you spend, not what you earn? I think it's not only a fair system, but one that would ultimately go a long way towards improving the overall financial health of Americans. It would teach us to control our spending more in ways that we don't now, leaving more money in American pockets. The difference could be made up in corporate taxation.

 

The biggest argument that I see thrown around is that it's disproportionately unfair to the working class, and to that I say that a provision should be built in allowing some of the tax to be refunded each year based upon income and spending. That bridges the percentage gap between the person making $40k per year and spending $35k of it, and the person making $1M per year and spending $600k of it. If the percentages even out in the end, it's fair to everyone.

 

I've never said that the Fair Tax, etc., etc., doesn't deserve a fair hearing. It doesn't seem likely in our lifetime, but I could probably live with in. As always, it depends on the details. There is no silver bullet in a democracy however.

 

See my response to Eric. Don't want him to change at all. But make an argument, as you have. Look, I believe in the possibility of reincarnation, and Eric was clearly once Andrew Carnegie's press secretary, lol. My only beef is - a little less 19th century political theory that is gone forever and ain't coming back - and a little more 21st century politics.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

lol TJBender couldn't address FBT who only asked simple, logical questions.

 

looks like TJBender doesn't have an answer. He is just okay with taking money from people and giving it to others.

 

#utopia

---

lol TJBender couldn't address FBT who only asked simple, logical questions.

 

looks like TJBender doesn't have an answer. He is just okay with taking money from people and giving it to others.

 

#utopia

More like I know that addressing FBT in this forum is a waste of breath. The man mocks American servicemen, calls anyone who disagrees with him a fry cook and suggests that people who think differently than he does should move to Greece. Screw that, I've got better things to do with my life than waste it replying to that.

---

Deez Nutz is missing from the list of choices. 

---

More like I know that addressing FBT in this forum is a waste of breath. The man mocks American servicemen, calls anyone who disagrees with him a fry cook and suggests that people who think differently than he does should move to Greece. Screw that, I've got better things to do with my life than waste it replying to that.

:thumbsup:

---