Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with liberals is that they think with their hearts, and not their heads. This thread shows it.
they might think with their hearts.. in the fact that they'll say, taxes should be raised to "help" the poor... but they do not personally "ACT" on their heart.
So your quoted text above, might be properly understood by saying "The problem with liberals is that they think of other people and situations with their hearts,but think of themselves logically."
If subsidies really increase prices then the right wing should agree to cut the subsidies for big oil and farm subsidies and the endless subsidies to politically connected corporations. BTW for those people who are not economically illiterate subsides generally encourage over production and price drops because more providers get into the business to chase the subsidies. That's why so many farmers decide to plant subsidized corn instead of some other crop even though the market price of corn is dirt cheap. This results in a glut of corn as huge numbers of farmers plant more corn because their profits are guaranteed by the subsidies.
The same dynamic is at work with subsidized education. More universities expand or open to get into education business because there is more demand for university educations thus the supply is increased due to the subsidies. So once again CATO has a completely factually incorrect argument designed to do nothing more than advance CATO's (read: the Koch Brother's) agenda of eliminating as much spending which benefits the general population as possible.
I'm so sick an tired of the older generation screwing us over. My dad had the SAME viewpoint when I was in high school. That quickly changed. 3 years out of graduation and realizing that I need to go back to school to have the same middle/upper middle class existence my dad provided me. He looked at the amount of debt I'll be in. For the rest of my life I'll be in debt. Why? To help educate the future of America. That's right. I would like to go into education. However, because of the budget deficit in California which initially was started by a CONSERVATIVE idea to deregulate electricity. Gray Davis became quite conservative in his treatment towards education and social services during the end of his tenure. By 2004, when I entered the new governor cut funding further. This lead to HUGE spikes in tuition. This continues today. There was even talk to privatize the UC system and the CSU system...lauded as the best public university systems in the US and a model for the much of the WORLD.
What effect does this have on society? Well, we loose our competitive edge. Less people able to go to college means less researchers, less doctors, teachers, etc. Less innovations are made. That isn't the America I would want to live in.
Subsidies aren't the problem. If that were the case, we would expect to see LOWER tuition at the UC system since it received less state subsidies. We saw the opposite. We saw less poorer students. We are seeing more rich out of state students. We are seeing the furthering divide between rich and poor in California. This is REALLY poor policy.
We give subsidies to oil companies, but we expect our children to be saddled with debt because they choose to go get an education? That's BS. The cost of education has risen WAY faster than inflation. It's surpassed the ability to fully pay after an average starting salary of 30-40k a year (depending on field).
What it really boils down to is that the Far Right want to fully privatize the US. The reason why is because they would enter into markets that are more dominated by the government. They stand to make more money. However, collectivization and voting stand in their way. By chipping away at confidence and misleading the root causes, people actually believe them. It's fairly easy to see why. If an extremely rich person told you that they got their wealth on their own with NO help, you actually think that then you have a chance. In reality, societies services as well as many other factors, helped them along the way. Also, you're more likely to stay in class than to rise up in ranks.
Oddly, social mobility is higher in countries with more collectivization since the motives are not profit driven. The motives are not for conservation of wealth, but rather conservation of wellbeing. Thus, healthcare and education are seen not as markets, but rather intrinsic to the wellbeing of a person in society. If a person is not concerned with costs of education, they have more freedom of expression. This freedom of expression is translated into more opportunities to enter into endeavors. That's part of the reason why Scandinavia is better for small businesses than the US. The collectivization of basic tools (safety, health, and education) allows for more higher level expression.
Here in the US, we fret over the basics (health and education namely). So, you reduce the talent pool (less educated individuals), homogenize it (less emphasis on creative subjects, more commercial viability to get a job instead of start up something or invent something...less emphasis on altruistic careers), and make it dependent on corporations (the need to pay off bills and have health care). What you also do is create class and racial difference. Now we have a caste system. Those at the top are conservatives who do not want competition. Those at the bottom are disproportionately people of color that have no social safety net and thus are living in the same conditions as people in Kibera or Favelas or Rio. The middle are wage slaves to banks and to insurance. God bless the USA.
I love the Cato institute. They always give the ignorant idiots great rationalization points to feel superior to those with education and wealth as they wait in lines for food kitchens. This way the wealthy get cheap and happily docile labor.
If subsidies really increase prices then the right wing should agree to cut the subsidies for big oil and farm subsidies and the endless subsidies to politically connected corporations.
Absolutely. We should eliminate every subsidy including farms, education, solar, etc, etc. In fact, we should eliminate all federal revenue sharing.
Revenue sharing is very much like the "taxation without representation" issue we had with the British.
If subsidies really increase prices then the right wing should agree to cut the subsidies for big oil and farm subsidies and the endless subsidies to politically connected corporations. BTW for those people who are not economically illiterate subsides generally encourage over production and price drops because more providers get into the business to chase the subsidies. That's why so many farmers decide to plant subsidized corn instead of some other crop even though the market price of corn is dirt cheap. This results in a glut of corn as huge numbers of farmers plant more corn because their profits are guaranteed by the subsidies.
The same dynamic is at work with subsidized education. More universities expand or open to get into education business because there is more demand for university educations thus the supply is increased due to the subsidies. So once again CATO has a completely factually incorrect argument designed to do nothing more than advance CATO's (read: the Koch Brother's) agenda of eliminating as much spending which benefits the general population as possible.
Subsidies are used to encourage economic activity that would not happen without it. Without the subisidy, a business would choose another path.
BTW for those people who are not economically illiterate subsides generally encourage over production and price drops because more providers get into the business to chase the subsidies. That's why so many farmers decide to plant subsidized corn instead of some other crop even though the market price of corn is dirt cheap. This results in a glut of corn as huge numbers of farmers plant more corn because their profits are guaranteed by the subsidies.
The same dynamic is at work with subsidized education. More universities expand or open to get into education business because there is more demand for university educations thus the supply is increased due to the subsidies. So once again CATO has a completely factually incorrect argument designed to do nothing more than advance CATO's (read: the Koch Brother's) agenda of eliminating as much spending which benefits the general population as possible.
Your example is backwards. Corn is not cheap, and in fact we have a huge global problem with lack of supply.
And farmers get paid to NOT grow crops.
Have you actually READ anything from CATO? I doubt it.
So, here is something you should read from CATO.
"It is matter of supply and demand. More and more Americans have sought a college education, which has pushed prices higher. Ordinarily, such upward pressure would be restrained by consumers’ willingness and ability to pay, but as government subsidies have helped absorb tuition increases, the public’s budget constraint has been lifted.9 Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University noted that federal subsidies “are seen by colleges and universities as money that is there for the taking . . . tuition is set high enough to capture those funds and whatever else we think can be extracted from parents.”"
I'm so sick an tired of the older generation screwing us over. My dad had the SAME viewpoint when I was in high school. That quickly changed. 3 years out of graduation and realizing that I need to go back to school to have the same middle/upper middle class existence my dad provided me. He looked at the amount of debt I'll be in. For the rest of my life I'll be in debt. Why? To help educate the future of America. That's right. I would like to go into education. However, because of the budget deficit in California which initially was started by a CONSERVATIVE idea to deregulate electricity. .
Have you actually read anything from CATO? I doubt you have, or you would know that they absolutely support higher education.
And you would also know that part of their opposition to federal subsidies is because it TRANSFERS THE COST TO MIDDLE INCOME TAXPAYERS!!!! And higher income people benefit.
Try reading a little before your next post. I'll help you this time;
CATO:
"There are numerous problems with federal subsidies for higher education. For one thing, such subsidies benefit people who will earn higher than average incomes during their careers. Thus, the effect of subsidy programs, in part, is to impose taxes on blue collar workers, who have not attended college, to pay for the tuition of future white-collar professionals. Why should the government subsidize future high earners at the expense of average working people?
Supporters of student aid subsidies argue that higher education is a “public good” that would be underprovided in a free market. However, that is probably not the case. People have a strong incentive to invest in their own education because it will lead to higher earnings. Those with a college degree will earn, on average, 75 percent more during their lifetime than those with just high-school degrees.8 That is a big incentive for people to save or borrow in private markets to pay for their own college costs. There is no “market failure” here.
Interestingly, the main effect of federal student aid programs may not be to transfer wealth from taxpayers to students as mentioned, but from taxpayers to academic institutions. That’s because the rise in student subsidies over the decades appears to have fueled inflation in education costs. Tuition and other college costs have soared as subsidies have risen."
I love the Cato institute. They always give the ignorant idiots great rationalization points to feel superior to those with education and wealth as they wait in lines for food kitchens. This way the wealthy get cheap and happily docile labor.
Have you ever read anything they publish? I doubt it.
"Ignorant idiots" are in abundance around here. Some even post on topics that they not only don't understand, but have never even done research on.
So the CATO institute thinks that college should only be accessible to the rich?? Those that can get private loans???
I'm not arguing against plumbers electricians, farmers and welders being great professions. They are, but if more people go to those fields, the surplus of workers will drive wages down.
The bigger problem is the lack of liveable wages for those at the bottom. Thus making college seem necessary for advancement. Higher skill careers should be paid more, but not at the expense of liveable wages at the bottom.
If the wages at the bottom paid adequately fewer would desire to go to college, and college costs would go down.
Of course this would mean liveable wages, probably meaning less for the rich elites. Which is something that is unacceptable for the CATO institute.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
