Phatscotty wrote:It's the ones who build all the 'progress' and then when it crashes in their face and ruins everyone else's life they move to another state only to start building their same progressive utopia all over again that I have a problem with.
Here is a real time PERFECT example of what I was talking about...
...the blaring disconnect between people who are voting for higher taxes and the actual paying of the taxes........
“I’m at the breaking point,” said Gretchen Gardner, an artist who bought a 1930s bungalow in the Bouldin neighborhood just south of downtown in 1991 and has watched her property tax bill soar to $8,500 this year.
“It’s not because I don’t like paying taxes,” said Gardner, who attended both meetings. “I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can’t afford to live here anymore. I’ll protest my appraisal notice, but that’s not enough. Someone needs to step in and address the big picture.”
YOU ARE THE BIG PICTURE! Protest yourself and the other morons like yourself. Everyone in your neighborhood gets to stand in line to slap ya
Moved this because I doubt Jone. wants his thread diverted to politics.
LOL...a few facts here:
CA has had one of the absolute best college systems in the world. Its no coincidence that Berkeley, UCLA, and even Stanford (yes, that last is a private college) all exist in CA. BUT, the real story lies not just with the tope tier (and note -- depending on the major, there are MANY, MANY stellar tiers there), but in the whole base that supports those tope few. In CA you can get up to a 2 year degree almost for free, INCLUDING a large number of technical specialities (ranging from plumbing and contracting to diving, to firefighting to architecture and nursing to... almost anything).
CA boasts BOTH one of the most premiere highway systems AND a phenomenal system of state and national parks. It produces so much produce that if it were a country, it would rank in the top 10 of producing countries. It also boasts diverse industry, etc, etc, etc....
ALL of that is not happing in spite of the tax system, but BECAUSE they have had a heavy tax supported bse.
Yes, people complain about taxes...but they also move to CA precisely because of all things those taxes provide.
patches70 wrote:Maybe CA can add another tax on everyone to make the clouds send rain! They can call it the Rain Dance Tax.
LOL Not that far from the truth. Water bills are high, but even so.. really don't pay for the costs involved. Its still basically considered a "free" resource. Dams, desalination plants, etc all cost money to maintain and operate.
Phatscotty wrote:It's the ones who build all the 'progress' and then when it crashes in their face and ruins everyone else's life they move to another state only to start building their same progressive utopia all over again that I have a problem with.
Here is a real time PERFECT example of what I was talking about...
...the blaring disconnect between people who are voting for higher taxes and the actual paying of the taxes........
“I’m at the breaking point,” said Gretchen Gardner, an artist who bought a 1930s bungalow in the Bouldin neighborhood just south of downtown in 1991 and has watched her property tax bill soar to $8,500 this year.
“It’s not because I don’t like paying taxes,” said Gardner, who attended both meetings. “I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can’t afford to live here anymore. I’ll protest my appraisal notice, but that’s not enough. Someone needs to step in and address the big picture.”
YOU ARE THE BIG PICTURE! Protest yourself and the other morons like yourself. Everyone in your neighborhood gets to stand in line to slap ya
Moved this because I doubt Jone. wants his thread diverted to politics.
LOL...a few facts here:
CA has had one of the absolute best college systems in the world. Its no coincidence that Berkeley, UCLA, and even Stanford (yes, that last is a private college) all exist in CA. BUT, the real story lies not just with the tope tier (and note -- depending on the major, there are MANY, MANY stellar tiers there), but in the whole base that supports those tope few. In CA you can get up to a 2 year degree almost for free, INCLUDING a large number of technical specialities (ranging from plumbing and contracting to diving, to firefighting to architecture and nursing to... almost anything).
CA boasts BOTH one of the most premiere highway systems AND a phenomenal system of state and national parks. It produces so much produce that if it were a country, it would rank in the top 10 of producing countries. It also boasts diverse industry, etc, etc, etc....
ALL of that is not happing in spite of the tax system, but BECAUSE they have had a heavy tax supported bse.
Yes, people complain about taxes...but they also move to CA precisely because of all things those taxes provide.
That wasn't a complaint. That was an 'I can't afford to live here anymore. I have no choice but to leave'
Sure, CA has some great schools, perhaps even some of the greatest? That isn't a counter to whether or not people can afford to live there anymore. You may be onto something if it were true that things were getting more affordable, but that isn't the case either. And not only the regular working people are the one's leaving either. The super rich are fleeing in droves. Why pay 65% income taxes (not counting sales taxes, user fees, toll roads, levies etc etc) when you can just move a few miles over into a state that does not take 2/3 of everything you do, everything you are, everything you will be? That's why it won't work for much longer, at least until you completely destroy Freedom and force people to stay against their will. Trust me, 70%+ taxes, while wonderful for people who don't pay them, is going to lose against Freedom every time when it comes to those who do pay them. Let's start a list of millionaires and billionaires who moved out of Cali because of 65% taxes....
I'll start with Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson. Say whatever you want about them, the bottom line is, their 2/3 of their live's work are no longer supporting California, period. That a good thing or a bad thing for Cali? Maybe now you want to say 'okay okay okay, we will be satisfied with only taking 58% of everything you do' Too late. And it will be too late for America if this greedy trend to claiming other people's earnings as their own continues.
Where they are moving tells a lot as well. TEXAS! That's fine and dandy, as they are Free to do so, but no doubt it's just a matter of time before all the people who fled the former 'Golden State' start to look around Texas and demand changes that make it more like California. In Texas, they say 'Don't come for the jobs, come for the Freedom'
California, sure, they have top notch highways, diverse industry, wonderful education.....the key is how are they going to maintain it in the medium-term future when there are no super wealthy left to extort.
Oh yeah, Federal gov't bailout, the rest of the states will be forced to pay.
If Neo lived in Cali, then Agent Smith would undoubtedly be the tax collector. Complete with the joint chorus of 'MORE!' until Neo finally decides to just leave the state.
But really all this talk and debate and politics and idealism isn't necessary. It's just one of the basic rules that need to be followed, and there is no greed involved, no need to take anyone elses money or property, no need to infringe on anything..... don't spend more than you take in.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:38 pm, edited 5 times in total.
California, sure, they have top notch highways, diverse industry, wonderful education.....the key is how are they going to maintain it in the medium-term future when there are no super wealthy left to extort.
well phatscotty the answer to that is quite simple... Leave the border porous and enjoy all the federal benefits . Someone who appears to be well groomed , seems to have missed the train on that one.
Phatscotty wrote:It's the ones who build all the 'progress' and then when it crashes in their face and ruins everyone else's life they move to another state only to start building their same progressive utopia all over again that I have a problem with.
Here is a real time PERFECT example of what I was talking about...
...the blaring disconnect between people who are voting for higher taxes and the actual paying of the taxes........
“I’m at the breaking point,” said Gretchen Gardner, an artist who bought a 1930s bungalow in the Bouldin neighborhood just south of downtown in 1991 and has watched her property tax bill soar to $8,500 this year.
“It’s not because I don’t like paying taxes,” said Gardner, who attended both meetings. “I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can’t afford to live here anymore. I’ll protest my appraisal notice, but that’s not enough. Someone needs to step in and address the big picture.”
YOU ARE THE BIG PICTURE! Protest yourself and the other morons like yourself. Everyone in your neighborhood gets to stand in line to slap ya
Moved this because I doubt Jone. wants his thread diverted to politics.
LOL...a few facts here:
CA has had one of the absolute best college systems in the world. Its no coincidence that Berkeley, UCLA, and even Stanford (yes, that last is a private college) all exist in CA. BUT, the real story lies not just with the tope tier (and note -- depending on the major, there are MANY, MANY stellar tiers there), but in the whole base that supports those tope few. In CA you can get up to a 2 year degree almost for free, INCLUDING a large number of technical specialities (ranging from plumbing and contracting to diving, to firefighting to architecture and nursing to... almost anything).
CA boasts BOTH one of the most premiere highway systems AND a phenomenal system of state and national parks. It produces so much produce that if it were a country, it would rank in the top 10 of producing countries. It also boasts diverse industry, etc, etc, etc....
ALL of that is not happing in spite of the tax system, but BECAUSE they have had a heavy tax supported bse.
Yes, people complain about taxes...but they also move to CA precisely because of all things those taxes provide.
That wasn't a complaint. That was an 'I can't afford to live here anymore. I have no choice but to leave'
Sure, CA has some great schools, perhaps even some of the greatest? That isn't a counter to whether or not people can afford to live there anymore. You may be onto something if it were true that things were getting more affordable, but that isn't the case either. And not only the regular working people are the one's leaving either. The super rich are fleeing in droves. Why pay 65% income taxes (not counting sales taxes, user fees, toll roads, levies etc etc) when you can just move a few miles over into a state that does not take 2/3 of everything you do, everything you are, everything you will be? That's why it won't work for much longer, at least until you completely destroy Freedom and force people to stay against their will. Trust me, 70%+ taxes, while wonderful for people who don't pay them, is going to lose against Freedom every time when it comes to those who do pay them. Let's start a list of millionaires and billionaires who moved out of Cali because of 65% taxes....
Probably because even a McDonald's worker there makes well over $10-12 an hour... AND, subsidies match the high costs. The kicker is that you can work in CA, build up your social security and then AFFORD to live decently elsewhere. To contrast, in most of PA, western NY, etc, well over half the population is making under $10 an hour.
Phatscotty wrote:I'll start with Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson. Say whatever you want about them, the bottom line is, their 2/3 of their live's work are no longer supporting California, period. That a good thing or a bad thing for Cali? Maybe now you want to say 'okay okay okay, we will be satisfied with only taking 58% of everything you do' Too late. And it will be too late for America if this greedy trend to claiming other people's earnings as their own continues.
The problem is that you were referring to taxes. The money that is being stolen is not being stolen through taxes, it is being siphoned off every purchase we make, off the reductions in wages average people get, not to pay more taxes, but to support the high lifestyles of the few who can get nice stock returns, bonuses and high salaries. THAT is where your money is going, but the 1% has duped folks like you into believing its all about taxes.
Truth is average people get far more return for their tax dollar, particularly in CA, than you pay out.
Phatscotty wrote:Where they are moving tells a lot as well. TEXAS! That's fine and dandy, as they are Free to do so, but no doubt it's just a matter of time before all the people who fled the former 'Golden State' start to look around Texas and demand changes that make it more like California. In Texas, they say 'Don't come for the jobs, come for the Freedom'
Texas.... yes, it has some jobs and some other things going for it. Primarily, it is a seat of oil. However, it has more than a few problems of its own. It does not match CA for the average lifestyle available to most people.
Phatscotty wrote:California, sure, they have top notch highways, diverse industry, wonderful education.....the key is how are they going to maintain it in the medium-term future when there are no super wealthy left to extort.
Well, see if the minimum wage were raised, then EVERYONE would contribute some... much like they did in the 60's and 70's.
Phatscotty wrote:But really all this talk and debate and politics and idealism isn't necessary. It's just one of the basic rules that need to be followed, and there is no greed involved, no need to take anyone elses money or property, no need to infringe on anything..... don't spend more than you take in.
The funny part about that is that I, and several others here, have been saying that to you every time you make claims about how you should not be paying taxes because the money is just a waste.
Phatscotty wrote:California, sure, they have top notch highways, diverse industry, wonderful education.....the key is how are they going to maintain it in the medium-term future when there are no super wealthy left to extort.
Playa wrote:Well, see if the minimum wage were raised, then EVERYONE would contribute some... much like they did in the 60's and 70's.
Such a crock. You raise the minimum wage, in a couple years you're gonna be right back where you started at. I have posted here articles from the late 1970's, written by people exactly like you, about how an increase to just $3 something an hour would lift millions out of poverty. Why didn't that work? Tackle the issue, holla back.
Phatscotty wrote:But really all this talk and debate and politics and idealism isn't necessary. It's just one of the basic rules that need to be followed, and there is no greed involved, no need to take anyone elses money or property, no need to infringe on anything..... don't spend more than you take in.
Playa wrote:The funny part about that is that I, and several others here, have been saying that to you every time you make claims about how you should not be paying taxes because the money is just a waste.
I have never made the claim in my life that I should pay zero taxes. Are you accusing me of being an anarchist? Goes to show you may read what I write, but you do not listen.
ps - also shows my fine state as #1 in folks moving in last year.....thus the cali-type morning rush hours now (tank the gods I'm self employed and don't commute) lol
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."
Phatscotty wrote:California, sure, they have top notch highways, diverse industry, wonderful education.....the key is how are they going to maintain it in the medium-term future when there are no super wealthy left to extort.
Playa wrote:Well, see if the minimum wage were raised, then EVERYONE would contribute some... much like they did in the 60's and 70's.
Such a crock. You raise the minimum wage, in a couple years you're gonna be right back where you started at. I have posted here articles from the late 1970's, written by people exactly like you, about how an increase to just $3 something an hour would lift millions out of poverty. Why didn't that work? Tackle the issue, holla back.
Except, I happened to have lived through the 70's... you just pick and choose a few articles that seem to support what you want to believe.
Besides that, several of us have given you plenty of data contradicting your partisan views.
Phatscotty wrote:[
Phatscotty wrote:[
Phatscotty wrote:But really all this talk and debate and politics and idealism isn't necessary. It's just one of the basic rules that need to be followed, and there is no greed involved, no need to take anyone elses money or property, no need to infringe on anything..... don't spend more than you take in.
Playa wrote:The funny part about that is that I, and several others here, have been saying that to you every time you make claims about how you should not be paying taxes because the money is just a waste.
I have never made the claim in my life that I should pay zero taxes. Are you accusing me of being an anarchist? Goes to show you may read what I write, but you do not listen.
You don't claim to be an anarchist, but you attack basically every tax and government regulation as being intrusive.
You pick out even the most miniscule of problem in the federal government, deny that we have any say in its workings.... and then trumpet the corporate hierarchy , thinking you are citing freedom instead of just corporate-speak.
The proof is in the economy. Who is REALLY benefitting from all these tax cuts and low wages? It sure isn't average people!
To contrast, in the "abusive" 70's, kids from even the poorest families could go to College, hunger was virtually unknown and retirement was a reality, not illusion for most Americans.
ps - also shows my fine state as #1 in folks moving in last year.....thus the cali-type morning rush hours now (tank the gods I'm self employed and don't commute) lol
I like Oregon, but to be fair, CA is really 4 different states. LA tends to dominate a lot of stats, but is not someplace I would every want to live! Northern CA is a lot like Oregon, in more than a few ways.
Phatscotty wrote:California, sure, they have top notch highways, diverse industry, wonderful education.....the key is how are they going to maintain it in the medium-term future when there are no super wealthy left to extort.
Playa wrote:Well, see if the minimum wage were raised, then EVERYONE would contribute some... much like they did in the 60's and 70's.
Such a crock. You raise the minimum wage, in a couple years you're gonna be right back where you started at. I have posted here articles from the late 1970's, written by people exactly like you, about how an increase to just $3 something an hour would lift millions out of poverty. Why didn't that work? Tackle the issue, holla back.
Except, I happened to have lived through the 70's... you just pick and choose a few articles that seem to support what you want to believe.
Besides that, several of us have given you plenty of data contradicting your partisan views.
Phatscotty wrote:[
Phatscotty wrote:[
Phatscotty wrote:But really all this talk and debate and politics and idealism isn't necessary. It's just one of the basic rules that need to be followed, and there is no greed involved, no need to take anyone elses money or property, no need to infringe on anything..... don't spend more than you take in.
Playa wrote:The funny part about that is that I, and several others here, have been saying that to you every time you make claims about how you should not be paying taxes because the money is just a waste.
I have never made the claim in my life that I should pay zero taxes. Are you accusing me of being an anarchist? Goes to show you may read what I write, but you do not listen.
You don't claim to be an anarchist, but you attack basically every tax and government regulation as being intrusive.
You pick out even the most miniscule of problem in the federal government, deny that we have any say in its workings.... and then trumpet the corporate hierarchy , thinking you are citing freedom instead of just corporate-speak.
The proof is in the economy. Who is REALLY benefitting from all these tax cuts and low wages? It sure isn't average people!
To contrast, in the "abusive" 70's, kids from even the poorest families could go to College, hunger was virtually unknown and retirement was a reality, not illusion for most Americans.
1. Everyone can go to college. It just depends on how much debt they're willing to incur--from banks and from family and friends, so perhaps you should change the wording of your first so that it's clearer.
2. I'd guess that the number of people who starved in the US has been falling over time. What effect have "tax cuts" had on this? What about "low wages"? (if labor productivity has been rising, then the nominal wage matters less. if real income has been increasing since the prices of food have been decreasing, then concern about a "low wage"/stagnant wage overlooks this.
3. "Retirement was a reality" is very vague. As we know, different people retire at different times depending on how much they can (a) live on the savings and (b) how much they can live on their ongoing wage--which is punished by government regulation (FYI). It is a fact that social security has raised the retirement age over time, but have people been retiring sooner or later over time?
Phatscotty wrote:California, sure, they have top notch highways, diverse industry, wonderful education.....the key is how are they going to maintain it in the medium-term future when there are no super wealthy left to extort.
Playa wrote:Well, see if the minimum wage were raised, then EVERYONE would contribute some... much like they did in the 60's and 70's.
Such a crock. You raise the minimum wage, in a couple years you're gonna be right back where you started at. I have posted here articles from the late 1970's, written by people exactly like you, about how an increase to just $3 something an hour would lift millions out of poverty. Why didn't that work? Tackle the issue, holla back.
Except, I happened to have lived through the 70's... you just pick and choose a few articles that seem to support what you want to believe.
Besides that, several of us have given you plenty of data contradicting your partisan views.
Phatscotty wrote:[
Phatscotty wrote:[
Phatscotty wrote:But really all this talk and debate and politics and idealism isn't necessary. It's just one of the basic rules that need to be followed, and there is no greed involved, no need to take anyone elses money or property, no need to infringe on anything..... don't spend more than you take in.
Playa wrote:The funny part about that is that I, and several others here, have been saying that to you every time you make claims about how you should not be paying taxes because the money is just a waste.
I have never made the claim in my life that I should pay zero taxes. Are you accusing me of being an anarchist? Goes to show you may read what I write, but you do not listen.
You don't claim to be an anarchist, but you attack basically every tax and government regulation as being intrusive.
You pick out even the most miniscule of problem in the federal government, deny that we have any say in its workings.... and then trumpet the corporate hierarchy , thinking you are citing freedom instead of just corporate-speak.
The proof is in the economy. Who is REALLY benefitting from all these tax cuts and low wages? It sure isn't average people!
To contrast, in the "abusive" 70's, kids from even the poorest families could go to College, hunger was virtually unknown and retirement was a reality, not illusion for most Americans.
1. Everyone can go to college. It just depends on how much debt they're willing to incur--from banks and from family and friends, so perhaps you should change the wording of your first so that it's clearer.
When you have to incur more debt than you can possibly pay back in the jobs for which you will be qualified, it IS out of reach. Not everyone has family and friends to fall back upon. Only a lucky few do.
A FEW kids can get scholarships or attend schools that don't charge tuition, but those few exceptions don't make my words false.
BigBallinStalin wrote:[2. I'd guess that the number of people who starved in the US has been falling over time.
Wrong. In the US (which is what I was talking about, not worldwide), childhood hunger was essentially eradicated in the late 70's. With Reagan, we began to see it return. Ironic, the most economically prosperous times saw cuts and effective decreases to the school lunch programs
BigBallinStalin wrote:[What effect have "tax cuts" had on this? What about "low wages"? (if labor productivity has been rising, then the nominal wage matters less. if real income has been increasing since the prices of food have been decreasing, then concern about a "low wage"/stagnant wage overlooks this.
BOTH have resulted in increased poverty. The most insidious part of low wages is that because people actually are working, they seem to be productive and contributing to society. Yet, when they have to rely upon subsidies to feed, cloth, and house their families, then are they really contributing? In fact, yes.. but much of that effort is effectively stolen by their bosses who don't pay them enough to live upon, as well as by the many who assume that bills being paid means there is no real problem, that only deadbeats truly need assistance.
BigBallinStalin wrote:3. "Retirement was a reality" is very vague. As we know, different people retire at different times depending on how much they can (a) live on the savings and (b) how much they can live on their ongoing wage--which is punished by government regulation (FYI). It is a fact that social security has raised the retirement age over time, but have people been retiring sooner or later over time?
My generation is seeing the end of the ability to retire. Unless social security is DRASTICALLY repaired, most of us won't be getting enough to live upon. Further, unless we are making over something like $75,000, we have not been able to put aside money for retirement. Those are the realities of not being part of the 1%. And no, it was NOT always like that! Nor does it have to be now.
PLAYER57832 wrote:When you have to incur more debt than you can possibly pay back in the jobs for which you will be qualified, it IS out of reach
If the cost of having a degree outweighs the benefit of attaining that degree, then what is the point of someone getting that degree?
Fixed. One answer: there's plenty of people like PLAYER who (a) keep telling people to get a degree (even though they'll choose the wrong one, or they'll waste money by dropping out) and who (b) cry for politicians and other voters to keep subsidizing college education (which further contributes to the problem).
PLAYER57832 wrote:When you have to incur more debt than you can possibly pay back in the jobs for which you will be qualified, it IS out of reach
I agree 100%. Just saying, why do you want to practice that reality in the entire nation?
Let's say you could have a brand new car right now, and you don't have to pay for it. Instead on your children's 18th birthday they will start paying for it. Would you take the new car now? Why not, when you are advocating the same concept, and extending it not to yourself, but that a total stranger should get that car, while your children still have to make the payments?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Gee, no empirical support. No surprise there.
Neither did you, neither did you. Except, I HAVE given examples in the past.
I have said many times that money is the main reason I could not complete my graduate degree or doctorate. Here in PA, tuition per CREDIT, (not class, CREDIT) is over $800. If I were single, I could get lots of aid. However, being married, my husband's income AND my income are each counted against us for aid. We fall just barely above the poverty line, so I cannot qualify. Even if I did, the fact that I could not continue my current income while going to school is essentially disregarded.
Also, because I have kids approaching college age, I have looked into many, many options for them. Basically, if I were in CA, it would not be a problem. Staying here... it is a BIG problem!
But.. more to the point. You made the statement that "anybody can go to school", now prove it in real terms, taking into account not just getting the degree, but actually being able to live with it.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Gee, no empirical support. No surprise there.
Neither did you, neither did you. Except, I HAVE given examples in the past.
I have said many times that money is the main reason I could not complete my graduate degree or doctorate. Here in PA, tuition per CREDIT, (not class, CREDIT) is over $800. If I were single, I could get lots of aid. However, being married, my husband's income AND my income are each counted against us for aid. We fall just barely above the poverty line, so I cannot qualify. Even if I did, the fact that I could not continue my current income while going to school is essentially disregarded.
Also, because I have kids approaching college age, I have looked into many, many options for them. Basically, if I were in CA, it would not be a problem. Staying here... it is a BIG problem!
But.. more to the point. You made the statement that "anybody can go to school", now prove it in real terms, taking into account not just getting the degree, but actually being able to live with it.
I offered some plausible exceptions to your claims, but you ignored them and basically regurgitated your positions. I'm not sure what the answers are*, but you are certain you know--without showing empirical support. That's a problem.
*(except for that starvation claim; I'd give that a 75% chance of being false),
PLAYER57832 wrote:When you have to incur more debt than you can possibly pay back in the jobs for which you will be qualified, it IS out of reach
If the value of having a degree outweighs the cost of attaining that degree, then what is the point of someone getting that degree?
Without one, you can only obtain jobs that require subsidies to survive.
Its a catch-22 rat race. The real point is that this skewed system happens because the people who REALLY benefit, those at the very top, are no longer required to pass it on to those who help them get there.. through better wages, conditions, education. Because that does not happen, the tax base keeps shrinking, which means fewer services and less for education, roads, etc.... and then less for wages.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Gee, no empirical support. No surprise there.
Neither did you, neither did you. Except, I HAVE given examples in the past.
I have said many times that money is the main reason I could not complete my graduate degree or doctorate. Here in PA, tuition per CREDIT, (not class, CREDIT) is over $800. If I were single, I could get lots of aid. However, being married, my husband's income AND my income are each counted against us for aid. We fall just barely above the poverty line, so I cannot qualify. Even if I did, the fact that I could not continue my current income while going to school is essentially disregarded.
Also, because I have kids approaching college age, I have looked into many, many options for them. Basically, if I were in CA, it would not be a problem. Staying here... it is a BIG problem!
But.. more to the point. You made the statement that "anybody can go to school", now prove it in real terms, taking into account not just getting the degree, but actually being able to live with it.
I offered some plausible exceptions to your claims, but you ignored them and basically regurgitated your positions. I'm not sure what the answers are*, but you are certain you know--without showing empirical support. That's a problem.
Not in the post to which I was responding.. or in any response you made to me.
And, just because you cite numbers doesn't really mean your data is more valid. In fact, its a lot easier to "tell a truth that lies" with numbers than without (not that you were doing that here).
I am leaving for the night now, but I will look back for the evidence you said you provided.
