just because my money is stolen now doesn't mean I have to support future theft.
as I said you and your liberal friend can give all the money you want to. I gave you the link. so put your money where your mouth is.
yes they did. it is called mathematical logic, mathematical proofing and several other classes on the same line to get those degree's.
i do so every paycheck when i pay my taxes. i'd prefer to have the money spent on the front end where it would do more good, though. you've indicated that you wouldn't, so be happy with the status quo.
having been reading the paper lately I take it. there are plenty of jobs but not enough qualified people.
the issue is that companies want real life experience anymore on top of a college education.
both in general are hard to get at the same time.
I made sure that I actually did real world experience so that I would have more to put on my resume than I waited tables.
You are now just pulling my leg's, aren't you?
and the strawmans continue.
One of the issues, IMO, is that history is very clear on this fact: If a job requires a high school degree, and 40 people apply, 39 with a high school degree and 1 with a bachelor's degree, the employer will likely choose the bachelor's degree. If there are 40 people applying, all of which have bachelor's degrees, then the job will eventually 'require' a bachelor's degree. Then a college creates a masters program for that degree. Now 40 people apply, one with a master's degree, and the employer will choose the master's applicant. Then doctorates, etc. etc. This is called escalation, and is already evident in medicine, in which nurses and physical therapists can have doctorates (not M.D. or D.O.) in their respective fields. There was a time when bachelor's degrees were competitive, then master's, now doctorates.
Education is used by employers as a rough (and often fallacious) measure of a candidate's qualifications. If everyone has the same 'qualifications', then the employers will just get a different measure and the 'qualifications' will be worthless as a measure of anything.
So all taxes are thievery? Is this your position now?are you going to ever move beyond thievery?
If college is free will they not work? Is something wrong with university being provided? Why is something wrong if university is provided and they dont have to pay any or as much as you did? If someones experience is different than yours because of a policy changed does that make it inherently "wrong" or "bad"?I worked and paid for it why can't they?
I know. And what is your point? Taxes should be voluntary? Because last time I asked that question you just said "strawman". So what's your point?I gave you the link that you can give all the money you want to the federal government
Which is what? I dont owe any stock currently.... Do liberals not owe $100 worth of stock? Also I am not a liberal.now be the good liberal and practice what you preach.
Whats the strawman? Still havent explained even when asked to do so...
Yea I know working for something isn't something liberals understand. everything is supposed to be handed to them on a silver platter.
I was working full time got married had a kid and was going to school full time on the weekend.
got my 2nd degree in 3 years time.
I had to take out loans and other money in order to do it.
I got a good job out of college
and the only debt I have left is student loans and my home mortgage, but it was well worth it.
if you get a degree in a viable field you can be those loans off in little time. if you consolidate the loans then you can actually pay them off faster with a good job and a good degree.
it's a little thing called work.
Excellent idea. A transactions tax on stock sales and purchases goes back to the 1930's in modern origin and is long overdue.
and the strawman continues.So all taxes are thievery? Is this your position now?
If college is free will they not work? Is something wrong with university being provided? Why is something wrong if university is provided and they dont have to pay any or as much as you did? If someones experience is different than yours because of a policy changed does that make it inherently "wrong" or "bad"?
I know. And what is your point? Taxes should be voluntary? Because last time I asked that question you just said "strawman". So what's your point?
Which is what? I dont owe any stock currently.... Do liberals not owe $100 worth of stock? Also I am not a liberal.
So he wants to damage the economy, so that people can go to college? That makes sense.
it depends on the job. if it is for flipping burgers I am not hiring the guy with the bachelors degree. I am hiring the guy with the high school diploma.
I am i am running a computer service company then yea i am hiring the guy with the bachelors degree.
if all the people have the same degree's then i look at experience and the interview.
this is the typical business process which almost all employer use.
What did I distort? You simply said, "well you can just donate your money then", so then I simply asked "are you saying taxes should be voluntary?", then you just yelled "STRAWMAN!". Then asked for you to clear up your statement and what you're implying, and you just kept on saying "well you can donate your money", then you said, "you support thievery!", so I asked "are all taxes thievery?". Its not a strawman, its simply asking your position on issues.your blatant distortion of what people say is evidence enough of how dishonest you are. you can't shoot down the statement so you dishonestly distort the statement to say something else then argue the distortion.
this is referred to as a strawman.
Ahh yes.. You mean like statements like this: "are you going to ever move beyond thievery? POST #125"? Calling a 50cent tax on $100 worth of stock to fund education "thievery" seems like an appeal to emotion...it can also lead to several other logical fallacies depending on how bad the distortion is.
such appeals to emotion.
Statements like this: "Yea I know working for something isn't something liberals understand. everything is supposed to be handed to them on a silver platter. POST#111" ?this pretty much sums up your statements so far.
So your point is???i provided you and all the other liberals several ways that you can accomplish what you want to do with your own money.
Yup. And your point is??? What? Because people can freely donate money to the federal government then we shouldn't have to pay for this policy? Because people can freely donate money to the federal government then we shouldn't have to pay for all policies? What? We should be allowed to pick and choose what taxes we want to pay?you are free to do so at any time, and you can live with the fact that you don't steal from other people.
emotion without reason is a dangerous thing.
nope you don't. you want to tax other people more simply because you feel they should be. if you feel this way then you can send more of your own money instead of someone else's.
the status quo is the status quo because they refuse to use the resources already in place.
pretty much anyone can attend college now. although now you are required to actually do some work.
I know it is a four letter dirty word to most liberals that people actually have to work to get ahead in life.
Its not a straw man its a question. Why cant you answer it? You asked If I was going to "move beyond thievery?". Well 1.)What thievery am I supporting? And 2.)If what I think you are stating falls under 'thievery', the 50cent tax on $100 of stock, are all taxes "thievery"?and the strawman continues.
Again, not a distortion and not a straw man. Questioning and challenging your positions. So again I will ask: "If college is free will they not work? Is something wrong with university being provided? Why is something wrong if university is provided and they dont have to pay any or as much as you did? If someones experience is different than yours because of a policy changed does that make it inherently "wrong" or "bad"?"distortion and strawman.
Who is stealing other peoples money and by what means?the point is you don't have to steal other peoples money you can do it on your own with your own money.
Whats this then? "I gave you the link that you can give all the money you want to the federal government"i never said anything about voluntary taxes which is why your statement is a strawman.
Yup. Its called taxes.doesn't matter you feel other people should hand their money freely over to the government.
So pick and choose what we fund?i gave you the chance to practice what you preach but you don't seem interested.
Why is what? Why dont people just randomly donate money to the state to fund universal college education? Well because we have these things called taxes and expecting people just to hand over money to the federal government at will is not going to fund universal college education because its not law or policy.why is that?
For all your talk about fallacies, this is pure irony.yes a socialist is nothing more than a more extreme liberal.
Why is taxing stock like this thievery?no need to tax stock like that at all. it is just another attempt to thieve from people without the realization of the consequences.
Rather than "stick it to" anyone, why not create a society in which everyone has an opportunity to prosper, and where all ships rise together?
What we should be asking ourselves is what can we do to incentivize productivity and maximize economic output so that everyone has a chance to grab a piece of the pie
Wake up and smell the coffee.
That's Bernie Sanders idea here, But the GOP will probably never let it happen.
One of the issues, IMO, is that history is very clear on this fact: If a job requires a high school degree, and 40 people apply, 39 with a high school degree and 1 with a bachelor's degree, the employer will likely choose the bachelor's degree. If there are 40 people applying, all of which have bachelor's degrees, then the job will eventually 'require' a bachelor's degree. Then a college creates a masters program for that degree. Now 40 people apply, one with a master's degree, and the employer will choose the master's applicant. Then doctorates, etc. etc. This is called escalation, and is already evident in medicine, in which nurses and physical therapists can have doctorates (not M.D. or D.O.) in their respective fields. There was a time when bachelor's degrees were competitive, then master's, now doctorates.
Education is used by employers as a rough (and often fallacious) measure of a candidate's qualifications. If everyone has the same 'qualifications', then the employers will just get a different measure and the 'qualifications' will be worthless as a measure of anything.
Not money, but productivity. The argument to be made for a better-educated populace is that educated workers are productive workers, and that a high tide raises all ships, so to say.
I don't personally buy it, but that's the crux of the argument.
As for me paying more taxes so that some kid can take acting lessons, you're never gonna convince me to vote for that. Fulfillment comes from achievement, and anyone who subsides on handouts can never claim to have achieved anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?