the rich get richer

• HitsRus

  

  I'm simply saying that if ANYONE has the motivation to go to college in this country, there are always options. It's a matter of doing personal homework to research the possibilities and not sitting on your dead ass and expecting the politicians to fund your education with someone else's honest labor.

  
  and this is the undeniable TRUTH. Some may have an easier path because some one in their past EARNED it,....but along the way someone has to EARN it. You can't create huge entitlements when you can't fund the ones you already have. There are plenty of worthy causes to fund but "taxing the rich" and painting them witha broad brush them as 'greedy'...is simply a cop out from your own personal responsibility for your own life. As I pointed out from Ohio State's budget, there is already significant government (progressively taxed taxpayer)contributions, so it is not like we are not already taxing for education. Additonally, alumni giving and donations from the 'rich' also contribute significant financial support....8% of the University's budget is from voluntary giving!( and I think it is fair to say that is not coming from the poor or lower middle class).
  
  
  It is incredibly simplistic and naive, and in the end, self defeating to blame the "greedy rich" or Ronald Reagan for one's educational plight. If there is a decrease in social mobility, it is due to many factors, not the least of which is a breakdown of the nuclear family by 50 years of social legislation. Now, more than ever, there are more ways for families and people to acquire a college education.... Ways that were not available when my grandfather, a common laborer, worked 12 and 14 hour days to support his 4 kids as they worked their way thru school. There were no assistance programs then and yet, 4 kids went to college and moved their family up the social ladder. That ethic...that a parent has a responsibility to provide/and or assist in any way possible their children's educational development persists in my family 2 generations later...and to a man (or woman)...ALL of my cousins and all of their worthy and able progeny have/ are attending college. Only a few of us are upper 10%' ers...none of us upper 5%....most are middle class. Now I realize that not everyone is 'lucky" enough to be born into that kind of a situation...but I assure you, there is nothing 'lucky' about it. It is a value that is instilled, demanded of, and carefully planned for our posterity. That kind of value should not be taxed away. It is a debt that we owe our children....but nobody else.
  
  Seriously, if any of my kids were to have the notion that someone else is responsible or to blame for the lack of their personal development I would be incredibly disappointed in them. Together , we have worked to provide the wherewithal for their success and it is their responsibility to do the same for their children. If my cousin, a divorced woman with 2 kids and living on a teacher's salary can put her kids thru college using the currently available means then so can you. If you are not 'lucky' enough to have such a parent(s) then become the one who does it... for your own posterity ...and set the example for your kids.
  

  and I got my degrees but that does not mean I do not realize the problems faced by others.

  Good....now start thinking about providing an education for you own children rather than how you are going to burden 'rich' taxpayers with their education. Just take care of your own...you'll have enough trying to do just that.
• isadore

  HitsRus;1581333 wrote:and this is the undeniable TRUTH. Some may have an easier path because some one in their past EARNED it,....but along the way someone has to EARN it. You can't create huge entitlements when you can't fund the ones you already have. There are plenty of worthy causes to fund but "taxing the rich" and painting them witha broad brush them as 'greedy'...is simply a cop out from your own personal responsibility for your own life. As I pointed out from Ohio State's budget, there is already significant government (progressively taxed taxpayer)contributions, so it is not like we are not already taxing for education. Additonally, alumni giving and donations from the 'rich' also contribute significant financial support....8% of the University's budget is from voluntary giving!( and I think it is fair to say that is not coming from the poor or lower middle class).
  
  
  It is incredibly simplistic and naive, and in the end, self defeating to blame the "greedy rich" or Ronald Reagan for one's educational plight. If there is a decrease in social mobility, it is due to many factors, not the least of which is a breakdown of the nuclear family by 50 years of social legislation. Now, more than ever, there are more ways for families and people to acquire a college education.... Ways that were not available when my grandfather, a common laborer, worked 12 and 14 hour days to support his 4 kids as they worked their way thru school. There were no assistance programs then and yet, 4 kids went to college and moved their family up the social ladder. That ethic...that a parent has a responsibility to provide/and or assist in any way possible their children's educational development persists in my family 2 generations later...and to a man (or woman)...ALL of my cousins and all of their worthy and able progeny have/ are attending college. Only a few of us are upper 10%' ers...none of us upper 5%....most are middle class. Now I realize that not everyone is 'lucky" enough to be born into that kind of a situation...but I assure you, there is nothing 'lucky' about it. It is a value that is instilled, demanded of, and carefully planned for our posterity. That kind of value should not be taxed away. It is a debt that we owe our children....but nobody else.
  
  Seriously, if any of my kids were to have the notion that someone else is responsible or to blame for the lack of their personal development I would be incredibly disappointed in them. Together , we have worked to provide the wherewithal for their success and it is their responsibility to do the same for their children. If my cousin, a divorced woman with 2 kids and living on a teacher's salary can put her kids thru college using the currently available means then so can you. If you are not 'lucky' enough to have such a parent(s) then become the one who does it... for your own posterity ...and set the example for your kids.
  
  
  
  Good....now start thinking about providing an education for you own children rather than how you are going to burden 'rich' taxpayers with their education. Just take care of your own...you'll have enough trying to do just that.

  No there are not always options. America is changing and opportunity is dying for millions. The attitude of I got mine, screw you permeates so many of the upper quintiles of our economy. For over 30 years the Reaganite policies have further enriched those favored by our economic structure.
  Government support for post secondary education has been a decreasing percentage of state budget. Those costs have been thrown increasingly on the students, which is no problem for the children of the rich and well to do, but is deadly for the ambitions of the poor. The charity of the rich, which of course can be used to right off taxes, is only a pittance of what has been lost from the government. And nothing compared to the tax breaks they have received from national and state Republican administrations.
  The breakdown of the nuclear family because of social legislation, really. The United States has a much higher divorce rate than the other developed states with the socialist cradle to grave welfare systems. They seem to be able to keep families together better than us. And you know what else, aid them after they break up. That includes providing societies with more social mobility.
  http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate
  Gosh a ruddies my dad was a mill worker who could support his family on his wages. But years of Reaganesque policies of deregulation and union busting has helped to end that possibility.
  Given the example you selected of your cousin, I got to wonder if you really have any idea of what being poor means
  She is a teacher, ok
  $56,383 median teacher salary in the US, Ohio $58,092
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/12/15/how-much-teachers-get-paid-state-by-state/
  Gosh if she has been teaching long enough to have children that going to college it is probably higher than that.
  Did she receive any child support from the father or Survivor benefits if a widow.
  Even without it she is better off than about 60% of the families in this country.
  Meanwhile, median household income fell slightly to $51,017 a year in 2012,
  http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news/economy/poverty-income/
  Now that average is for mostly two income homes.
  Poverty threshold for family of three is $19,530
  http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm#thresholds
  Free post secondary education could give the lower quintiles real opportunity.
  　
  
• pmoney25

  

  isadore;1581417 wrote:No there are not always options. America is changing and opportunity is dying for millions. The attitude of I got mine, screw you permeates so many of the upper quintiles of our economy. For over 30 years the Reaganite policies have further enriched those favored by our economic structure.
  Government support for post secondary education has been a decreasing percentage of state budget. Those costs have been thrown increasingly on the students, which is no problem for the children of the rich and well to do, but is deadly for the ambitions of the poor. The charity of the rich, which of course can be used to right off taxes, is only a pittance of what has been lost from the government. And nothing compared to the tax breaks they have received from national and state Republican administrations.
  The breakdown of the nuclear family because of social legislation, really. The United States has a much higher divorce rate than the other developed states with the socialist cradle to grave welfare systems. They seem to be able to keep families together better than us. And you know what else, aid them after they break up. That includes providing societies with more social mobility.
  http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate
  Gosh a ruddies my dad was a mill worker who could support his family on his wages. But years of Reaganesque policies of deregulation and union busting has helped to end that possibility.
  Given the example you selected of your cousin, I got to wonder if you really have any idea of what being poor means
  She is a teacher, ok
  $56,383 median teacher salary in the US, Ohio $58,092
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/12/15/how-much-teachers-get-paid-state-by-state/
  Gosh if she has been teaching long enough to have children that going to college it is probably higher than that.
  Did she receive any child support from the father or Survivor benefits if a widow.
  Even without it she is better off than about 60% of the families in this country.
  Meanwhile, median household income fell slightly to $51,017 a year in 2012,
  http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news/economy/poverty-income/
  Now that average is for mostly two income homes.
  Poverty threshold for family of three is $19,530
  http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm#thresholds
  Free post secondary education could give the lower quintiles real opportunity.
  　
  

  It must suck to be poor
• isadore

  pmoney25;1581433 wrote:It must suck to be poor

  that's what I hear.
• HitsRus

  

  http://studentaid.ed.gov/types
  http://voices.yahoo.com/college-university-scholarships-available-for-87761.html
  
  Those at poverty level have lots of help. It is the middle class that doesn't qualify for that type of aid is where some sacrifice is required. Help is available for those with motivation.
  

  But years of Reaganesque policies of deregulation and union busting has helped to end that possibility.

  FYI...The median annual wage for an air traffic controller...the union that Reagan is most famous for 'busting'...is $122,000
  
  My suggestion to you, would be to get your head out of the Daily Kos, and to get busy providing the opportunity for your own, rather than relying on someone else to do it.
• isadore

  HitsRus;1581449 wrote:http://studentaid.ed.gov/types
  http://voices.yahoo.com/college-university-scholarships-available-for-87761.html
  
  Those at poverty level have lots of help. It is the middle class that doesn't qualify for that type of aid is where some sacrifice is required. Help is available for those with motivation.
  
  
  
  FYI...The median annual wage for an air traffic controller...the union that Reagan is most famous for 'busting'...is $122,000
  
  My suggestion to you, would be to get your head out of the Daily Kos, and to get busy providing the opportunity for your own, rather than relying on someone else to do it.

  PATCO was only a small part of Reagan’s anti worker program.
  Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five-member National Labor Relations Board which oversees union representation elections and labor-management bargaining, the board abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."
  The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints of employers' illegal actions as had the board during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter, and those that were settled upheld employers in three-fourths of the cases. Even under Republican Richard Nixon, employers won only about one-third of the time.
  Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that under Reagan the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints, and that in any case it generally did no more than order the discharged unionists reinstated with back pay. That's much cheaper than operating under a union contract.
  The board stalled as long before acting on petitions from workers seeking union representation elections and stalled for another year or two after such votes before certifying winning unions as the workers' bargaining agents. Under Reagan, too, employers were allowed to permanently replace workers who dared exercise their legal right to strike.
  Reagan's Labor Department was as one-sided as the NLRB. It became an anti-labor department, virtually ignoring, for instance, the union-busting consultants who were hired by many employers to fend off unionization. Very few consultants and very few of those who hired them were asked for the financial disclosure statements the law demands. Yet all unions were required to file the statements that the law required of them (and that could be used to advantage by their opponents). And though the department cut its overall budget by more than 10 percent, it increased the budget for such union-busting activities by almost 40 percent.
  attempted to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, ease the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits, and cut back job training programs for the unemployed. He tried to replace thousands of federal employees with temporary workers who would not have civil service or union protections.
  The Reagan administration closed one-third of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's field offices, trimmed its staff by more than one-fourth and decreased the number of penalties assessed against employers by almost three-fourths.
  
  http://www.dickmeister.com/id89.html
  　
  　
  　
  
• isadore

  Oh the poor are so lucky, they have so much. Gosh I guess everyone wishes they were poor. Those programs do not work to provide opportunity as the programs in other countries do. The poor have a much higher chance of rising in those country.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1581465 wrote:...Those programs do not work to provide opportunity as the programs in other countries do....

  Then lets get rid of them before we add additional programs.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1581467 wrote:Then lets get rid of them before we add additional programs.

  so your suggestion is that lets make it worse for the poor then maybe, possibly we might make it better.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1581469 wrote:so your suggestion is that lets make it worse for the poor then maybe, possibly we might make it better.

  Not at all. Those are your words not mine.
  
  I simply responded to your observation of programs not working.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1581471 wrote:Not at all. Those are your words not mine.
  
  I simply responded to your observation of programs not working.

  really you suggested abolishing them. I said those programs were not as effective as those in other countries, they have not done what other countries programs have done in raising social mobility.
• Con_Alma

  That doesn't equate to me suggesting we make things worse.
  
  Quite the opposite based on your opinion that the programs are not effective.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1581473 wrote:That doesn't equate to me suggesting we make things worse.
  
  Quite the opposite based on your opinion that the programs are not effective.

  they are not as effective as they should be. If they were there would be more social mobility.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1581474 wrote:they are not as effective as they should be. If they were there would be more social mobility.

  Yeah, I understood that the first time you posted it. If they aren't effective maybe we should get rid of them before adding additional programs.
• isadore

  they do not have the effect they should, they help some but nowhere near as many as they should. Set up the new system to help them all, then do away with the less successful programs.
• HitsRus

  

  Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five-member National Labor Relations Board which oversees union representation elections and labor-management bargaining, the board abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."

  
  the average UAW mean salary today is $29.75 an hour plus benefits.
  
  Again...get your nose out of the Daily Kos and think for yourself.
• Belly35

  

  Here is the best program to stop poverty ... Get a fucking job... Work for a living ... Wake up and go to work .... Be the best at what you do .....
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1581485 wrote:they do not have the effect they should, they help some but nowhere near as many as they should. Set up the new system to help them all, then do away with the less successful programs.

  
  If they aren't effective and aren't doing what they should we should eliminated them.
• gut

  Con_Alma;1581512 wrote:If they aren't effective and aren't doing what they should we should eliminated them.

  C'mon, now. The surest way to get more mediocrity is to subsidize it!
• isadore

  HitsRus;1581489 wrote:the average UAW mean salary today is $29.75 an hour plus benefits.
  
  Again...get your nose out of the Daily Kos and think for yourself.

  if that was the average for workers instead of an outlier, and all workers were unionized with collective bargaining rights, then we would be nearer to where we should be. I don't visit the Daily Kos, can you say that about Fox News.
• isadore

  Belly35;1581510 wrote:Here is the best program to stop poverty ... Get a fucking job... Work for a living ... Wake up and go to work .... Be the best at what you do .....

  we have people in full time
  jobs that do not pay enough to get them out of poverty.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1581512 wrote:If they aren't effective and aren't doing what they should we should eliminated them.

  if they are not effective as they should be, we should establish a better system, then eliminate the less effective programs.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1581518 wrote:if they are not effective as they should be, we should establish a better system, then eliminate the less effective programs.

  
  
  I don't know if they are not as effective as the should be. You said they weren't and now you are saying "if". Which is it? I agree that they should be eliminated "if" they are not effective.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1581520 wrote:I don't know if they are not as effective as the should be. You said they weren't and now you are saying "if". Which is it? I agree that they should be eliminated "if" they are not effective.

  gosh a ruddies pay attention
• Con_Alma

  I am and in so doing recognized that you changed your verbiage which in turn has a different meaning than the original statement I responded to.