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.
All you've repeated over and over and over is that they are illegal. That's it. That's all your argument is. Nothing more. I've showed how college educated people have lower unemployment rates. I've explained how higher incomes means more consumer goods and tax collection. I even explained how by raising property taxes that are ridiculously low as well as income taxes for the wealthy that are also historically low we can fund education for BOTH illegal immigrants (who comprise less than 10% of the CA population...roughly 5% or so) and legal residents.
I stated that they would have to become educated. Yet, you and ringwise ignore all that and parrot the same line over and over again.
You're doing the same thing that tropical birds do, regurgitate the same lines without addressing the other points.
And you've ignored over and over that they're illegal. You keep ignoring the fact they should be sent packing.
Of course college education means lower unemployment. But what does that have to do with allowing illegals to get a college education on the taxpayer's dime?
Don't care WHAT will fund education for illegal immigrants. Who cares if they have to become educated. They can do it on their dime and in their country.
If we kick them out, it will also result in lower entitlements being paid out.
Wow, FIVE TIMES I stated that THEY WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL!!! FIVE TIMES. Under DREAM, they would be legal upon completion. I've stated that SEVERAL times. Here is time number six.
No, they wouldn't be illegal, but they ARE NOW. DO I HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING MYSELF?
Screaming won't change the fact that you want to give a pass to criminals, and legalize their illegal status. Saying it six times won't change that fact.
What say we change the definition of pedophilia to be children under 6 months. That would mean that all those criminals in prison are now NOT sex offenders. Doesn't change what they were before the ridiculous change, now does it.
Not under the CA Dream Act..that's just a funding bill.
There is no Federal legislation in the works to grant amnesty.
Ringwise, Texas. If DREAM had passed (which it's stupid it didn't, but it does not mean there are no re introduction campaigns in the works) they would be legal.
7 times.
No, they wouldn't be illegal, but they ARE NOW. DO I HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING MYSELF?
Screaming won't change the fact that you want to give a pass to criminals, and legalize their illegal status. Saying it six times won't change that fact.
What say we change the definition of pedophilia to be children under 6 months. That would mean that all those criminals in prison are now NOT sex offenders. Doesn't change what they were before the ridiculous change, now does it.
Pedophilia and going to college are TWO different things. Please do try to keep up.
I appreciate your detailed response to my post. I apologize for the slow response, since I haven't visited this thread since the last day I posted within.
While I do appreciate your goal of helping others since it is the same as mine, I don't believe we should use your means to achieve the goal if many in our society do not want it imposed on them at the federal level. This is why I prefer these things to be handled by the state level, so if the citizens of a state want to use your approach, that's fine by me. But there's no reason to impose that on others in a different area of the country who have a different mentality.
Think about, aren't there conservative policies you disagree with and don't want imposed on you? If you had the freedom to choose in your own state and then convince (instead of impose) other states to follow your shining example, that's the best approach because it's voluntary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
The school I went to was in the inner city. It had a high level of inequality. Not to mention, Freedom, that inequality is growing. Wages for middle income earners have stagnated. Wages for the poor have FALLEN...the rich have gotten richer.
This gap says more about the choices of the poor and middle class, and the investment savvy of the rich. They aren't related, so the correlation doesn't equal causation. In the absence of an easily accessed merit / educational system, I would agree with you.
Anyone can rise out of poverty by making decent, not even great grades, and going to the local college and majoring in an in-demand career. Rich people's wealth and income have no effect on mine because income/wealth is NOT a zero sum game where one takes out of the economic pie and it automatically comes from another. The economic system is primarily voluntary. Involuntary income transfers only occur through the tax system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
SAT tutors are $500. It's not that expensive...for a middle income family. Quite so for a lower income family.
My SAT and ACT scores were higher than most kids in my college who had tutors and came from very elite backgrounds. In fact, most of the elite kids I met were average and the ones who did better on me on those exams were average background kids. I borrowed SAT / ACT books from the library for FREE and self-studied without parental help or input.
One does not NEED an SAT tutor to prepare for the exam, what they need is either self-motivation or motivated parents who require them to study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
If there were a program in place that could reach more people than I could, wouldn't that be better? I can't reach every person. What if there were an entity that people voted upon. What if people pooled money together and received goods and services from that entity. That entity voted on doing things with that money. Let's say that could loose their job if they did things the people did not like. Well, with that kind of oversight and collectivization, they could reach and help many. We an entity like that. Ideally, our government works like that.
I'm all for your system, minus the government portion. That's where it stops being voluntary unless a majority of the citizens agree to it. Why not advocate for this on the state level, in a state where citizens want your idea on a governmental level? If your system works, then advocates of your system can convince (not impose) this in other states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
It's not "imposed" fairness. The poster is essentially trying to say that our system SHOULD be flawed. In the land where all men are created equal, why not allow for equal opportunity?
It IS imposed "fairness" if people who pay for it, don't agree with it. Please define your version of equal opportunity. As long as there are elite areas and poor areas, and kids easily can't transfer out of a bad neighborhood school to a good one elsewhere, there will NEVER be complete equal opportunity. However, our system is still equal enough for one to come out of a poor background and succeed as long as they are the top student in a low-performing school and then work hard in college. I agree that their headstart is less, but how are you going to make the poorest student have the same exact education without going directly against the policies Democrats stand for? It's already been proven extra money doesn't do it, see D.C. vs elite school districts. The problem is primarily the effects of bad parenting and unmotivated teachers creating a negative environment, not the buildings, books and computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
I tried to rectify a situation caused by people of your mentality. That the government is "taking away my money" and "those lazy good for nothings won't amount to anything". It's that mentality that is ruining our nation. Greed is not good. That's why people are vehemently opposed to taking away Medicare...but do not want to raise taxes on the rich. So the rich win. They have more resources.
Here's the disconnect. Your side says "help disadvantaged people". The other side sees people who are NOT disadvantaged taking advantage of the system. The real issue is incompetence, fraud, and a general lack of accountability. I think more people would agree with you if true deadbeats weren't riding the system with little consequences. No one wants their tax dollars to go to waste for someone who isn't truly in need. I'm not talking about hardcore conservatives who only believe in charity, I'm talking about general masses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
I suggest that you look at the data concerning wages from the 1960s to the present. Something happens at around the 1980s...wages diverge dramatically. Tax cuts for the rich and social welfare cuts for the poor. Middle class stagnation. This is all due to the fact that the entity we elected was told to benefit the rich.
This situation you're referring to is a wonderful example for why these things should be implemented at the state level. In your state, you can have a sustained social welfare state with high taxes for the rich and not have to worry about Republicans coming in and making cuts. The current back and forth is is the effect of polarized federal government. If I were for a welfare state and high taxes, I'd definitely fight for it on a state level and attract disadvantaged people to move to my state and take advantage of our wonderful utopia, or organize to make change in the other state governments.
I'm against both poor and rich having advantages over the other. But I don't link income going up for one, and income going down for the other as a direct relationship.
In regards to the entity we elected in the 1980s hurting the poor/middle class, are you referring to Reagan, Congress or both? Both share blame for this, but remember the House (where holds the power of the purse per the Constitution) was monopolized by Democrats every term from 1952 to 1994.
We are all adults here, and if we do not like our status in life, there is both structured and self-education that will help a motivated person to change things. I come from a very poor background, and used both self and structured education to lead myself out of it. I had no help from people at home and achieved everything using merit scholarships and working to save my own money to start a business at age 20. All of this money came from low paying college student jobs, not some cushy position.
The opportunity to succeed is already there, I simply believe people don't realize it or aren't motivated enough to grab it.
Once again, I welcome your goals, I simply believe voluntary charity or voluntary government policies is the best approach so we don't resort to imposing our ideals on others.
This is an excellent, thoughtful post. Unfortunately- closed minds will not accept it. It is easier to blame all poor people for their plight.
Good morning,
I grew up very poor, I worked hard (without parental help) and now I'm not poor. What's different about me and other people from similar backgrounds?
One can only assume from your statement that poor people aren't adults who can make their own smart, independent choices to change their situation (or remain the same since there's some level of comfort or benefit).
Sure, I see opportunity all over the place, but I lack the capital and the right connections and right skills to take advantage of them.
There is an emerging body of literature on networks. It appears what the poor really need are better networks.
Good morning,
I had your exact issues a decade ago and I overcame it. I spent zero of my own money getting into real estate and I now own 20 rental properties and have bought and sold hundreds for wholesale profit over the past 10 years. In fact, I started as a broke college student.
Lack of capital: Live below your means and save money while working. Also, choose a business that doesn't require a lot of startup capital. Example: wholesaling real estate to investors until you've built up enough cash to renovate and flip houses. Then, use the profits from renovating to buy rentals. None of this involved borrowing capital. You can take the same approach in other businesses by providing a service to people who already have money, and building up your reserves until you have enough to become the "man with the money" who now buys from the next generation of "little guys".
Right connections: Get out there and meet people. Join the chamber of commerce and similar organizations, volunteer in organizations where people with clout volunteer, and go to all of the events. You'd be surprised how many people will help you simply because they like you. Unless you're in small good ole-boy towns, people don't only help people they grew up with.
Right skills: Free skills training in every city in America: The public library and the internet. (both can be found in the same building). Check out books in the fields you're interested in, read everything you can find, and join online forums where others are freely sharing how they made money in this area. I've even found online forums where people share niche business ideas for lawn mowing businesses!
Soon, you'll find that you're stumbling into side niche businesses or completely different businesses that are easier to startup.
Go to the library and check out the 4 Hour Workweek as a starting point!!!
Last edited by Freedom123; 04-27-2011 at 09:38 AM..
I appreciate your detailed response to my post. I apologize for the slow response, since I haven't visited this thread since the last day I posted within.
While I do appreciate your goal of helping others since it is the same as mine, I don't believe we should use your means to achieve the goal if many in our society do not want it imposed on them at the federal level. This is why I prefer these things to be handled by the state level, so if the citizens of a state want to use your approach, that's fine by me. But there's no reason to impose that on others in a different area of the country who have a different mentality.
Think about, aren't there conservative policies you disagree with and don't want imposed on you? If you had the freedom to choose in your own state and then convince (instead of impose) other states to follow your shining example, that's the best approach because it's voluntary.
This gap says more about the choices of the poor and middle class, and the investment savvy of the rich. They aren't related, so the correlation doesn't equal causation. In the absence of an easily accessed merit / educational system, I would agree with you.
Anyone can rise out of poverty by making decent, not even great grades, and going to the local college and majoring in an in-demand career. Rich people's wealth and income have no effect on mine because income/wealth is NOT a zero sum game where one takes out of the economic pie and it automatically comes from another. The economic system is primarily voluntary. Involuntary income transfers only occur through the tax system.
My SAT and ACT scores were higher than most kids in my college who had tutors and came from very elite backgrounds. In fact, most of the elite kids I met were average and the ones who did better on me on those exams were average background kids. I borrowed SAT / ACT books from the library for FREE and self-studied without parental help or input.
One does not NEED an SAT tutor to prepare for the exam, what they need is either self-motivation or motivated parents who require them to study.
I'm all for your system, minus the government portion. That's where it stops being voluntary unless a majority of the citizens agree to it. Why not advocate for this on the state level, in a state where citizens want your idea on a governmental level? If your system works, then advocates of your system can convince (not impose) this in other states.
It IS imposed "fairness" if people who pay for it, don't agree with it. Please define your version of equal opportunity. As long as there are elite areas and poor areas, and kids easily can't transfer out of a bad neighborhood school to a good one elsewhere, there will NEVER be complete equal opportunity. However, our system is still equal enough for one to come out of a poor background and succeed as long as they are the top student in a low-performing school and then work hard in college. I agree that their headstart is less, but how are you going to make the poorest student have the same exact education without going directly against the policies Democrats stand for? It's already been proven extra money doesn't do it, see D.C. vs elite school districts. The problem is primarily the effects of bad parenting and unmotivated teachers creating a negative environment, not the buildings, books and computers.
Here's the disconnect. Your side says "help disadvantaged people". The other side sees people who are NOT disadvantaged taking advantage of the system. The real issue is incompetence, fraud, and a general lack of accountability. I think more people would agree with you if true deadbeats weren't riding the system with little consequences. No one wants their tax dollars to go to waste for someone who isn't truly in need. I'm not talking about hardcore conservatives who only believe in charity, I'm talking about general masses.
This situation you're referring to is a wonderful example for why these things should be implemented at the state level. In your state, you can have a sustained social welfare state with high taxes for the rich and not have to worry about Republicans coming in and making cuts. The current back and forth is is the effect of polarized federal government. If I were for a welfare state and high taxes, I'd definitely fight for it on a state level and attract disadvantaged people to move to my state and take advantage of our wonderful utopia, or organize to make change in the other state governments.
I'm against both poor and rich having advantages over the other. But I don't link income going up for one, and income going down for the other as a direct relationship.
In regards to the entity we elected in the 1980s hurting the poor/middle class, are you referring to Reagan, Congress or both? Both share blame for this, but remember the House (where holds the power of the purse per the Constitution) was monopolized by Democrats every term from 1952 to 1994.
We are all adults here, and if we do not like our status in life, there is both structured and self-education that will help a motivated person to change things. I come from a very poor background, and used both self and structured education to lead myself out of it. I had no help from people at home and achieved everything using merit scholarships and working to save my own money to start a business at age 20. All of this money came from low paying college student jobs, not some cushy position.
The opportunity to succeed is already there, I simply believe people don't realize it or aren't motivated enough to grab it.
Once again, I welcome your goals, I simply believe voluntary charity or voluntary government policies is the best approach so we don't resort to imposing our ideals on others.
It's night time in Seoul...technically 12:26 in the AM. Regardless, I glanced at your post. As most far right post it glosses over history and paints a nostalgic and myopic view of America. Not only that it glosses over current events to state that privatization and deregulation are best (which really caused this crisis as well as the 1920s crisis...also many environmental crises).
That's good that you were able to open up a business at 20. I was busy working trying to finance my college and pay credit cards down since I had to buy, yet another $200 book for the quarter. Do you know why? Because the Republican governor of my state decided that we needed to keep non violent prisoners in jail but cut funding to the UC system. That in turn led to a billion dollar deficit in the nation's largest top tier public school system. Well, that raised tuition. It wouldn't have been too bad if I weren't paid only $8 an hr.
Elite school districts have, on the whole more funding. They even, on the whole, pay teachers more (thus you start off in a poor district and leave once an opening pops up...so you siphon off experienced teachers to better districts...my dad was constantly told he was crazy not to take a job in a better district).
I didn't have time to self study and needed a crash course. Do you know why? Well, admissions are HARDER now. So in order to save up for college you need a job in high school (but not one that consumes too much time) I needed a job that allows me to do volunteer work, track, student government, advanced Biology after school, and chemistry. I would wake up at 5 and go to sleep by 1 or 2 in order to make it into a top school. If my parents were rich and went to an ivy league, I would pull a GWB instead.
Our system is not equal. Go to an inner city school. Check out their textbooks. Check out tutoring opportunities. Hell, find out which schools still have asbestos. My friend's science project was determining radioactivity in schools. Realize that the parents are generally working LONGER hours for less pay.
Your side sees the minority of people who take advantage of the system. Our sees the majority being taken advantaged by the system.
Why can't government be for the people? A government for people, by the people.
Nobody wants to do away with capitalism. It works, but it needs to be regulated so that we don't have a fascist oligarchical society.
Can't you accomplish more when 300 million people are working together on the same goal as opposed to a few disparate charities?
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.
