PDA

View Full Version : Religious Voters Vote Against Their Beliefs


NewLeafsFan
January 4th, 2017, 05:47 AM
Religious voters usually support right wing candidates (Conservatives, Republicans, etc) because they are usually against gay marrage, pro-life, ect. However, the right wing also gives the rich tax breaks and limit social assistance. Right wing economics are not god like.

Anyone want to add something or disagree?

Voodoo
January 4th, 2017, 06:41 AM
Religious voters usually support right wing candidates (Conservatives, Republicans, etc) because they are usually against gay marrage, pro-life, ect. However, the right wing also gives the rich tax breaks and limit social assistance. Right wing economics are not god like.

Anyone want to add something or disagree?

Well, let's disagree.

1. I know plenty of Democratic voters who are against same sex marriage, equal rights for same-sex couples. Infract, the Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton was against same-sex marriage until magically the years of 2015/2016 she only "agreed" with it to gain votes. If you do not believe me, there are about 20 years of videos to prove my point.

2. Right wing historically has given tax breaks to the wealthy, but I would too seeing how they are in the highest tax bracket. Let's also talk about half of the scandals the left wing has been involved in over the years. A lot of money laundering scandals...

3. I'll give an example of how left wing Economics are not good. Cuba, Soviet Union, Venezuela, Brazil, North Korea, the list goes on. Under the Obama administration, the country has more than DOUBLED the national debt in just under eight years. That's more than George Bush has added in his eight years.

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 4th, 2017, 09:38 AM
Religious voters usually support right wing candidates (Conservatives, Republicans, etc) because they are usually against gay marrage, pro-life, ect. However, the right wing also gives the rich tax breaks and limit social assistance.

Being against gay marriage and abortion, but supportive of tax breaks for businesses and being against welfare is not hypocritical. I really don't know why you would even think such.

The right wing takes a Laissez-Faire approach to the economy, which is basically reducing government involvement in the economy. There is nothing religiously wrong with that approach, so unless I am totally missing something I see no basis for this thread.

mattsmith48
January 4th, 2017, 12:38 PM
Well, let's disagree.

1. I know plenty of Democratic voters who are against same sex marriage, equal rights for same-sex couples. Infract, the Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton was against same-sex marriage until magically the years of 2015/2016 she only "agreed" with it to gain votes. If you do not believe me, there are about 20 years of videos to prove my point.

The Democratic party is more a centre-right party than a left wing party, and Hillary Clinton is a conservative with some decency.

2. Right wing historically has given tax breaks to the wealthy, but I would too seeing how they are in the highest tax bracket. Let's also talk about half of the scandals the left wing has been involved in over the years. A lot of money laundering scandals...

What does a few money laundering scandals it have to do with this? And what money laundering scandals?

3. I'll give an example of how left wing Economics are not good. Cuba, Soviet Union, Venezuela, Brazil, North Korea, the list goes on. Under the Obama administration, the country has more than DOUBLED the national debt in just under eight years. That's more than George Bush has added in his eight years.

What about Denmank, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Canada? They seem to do find.

Bush entered office with a surplus and changed it almost immediately into a deficit, Obama entered office with the worst recession since the 1930s, and 2 wars on the credit card, under the circumstances, I think he did pretty well. He cut the deficit in half and got the unemployment rate to 5%.

Being against gay marriage and abortion, but supportive of tax breaks for businesses and being against welfare is not hypocritical. I really don't know why you would even think such.

I don't think Jesus would agree. For conservatives its more important to tell men where they can and can't put their dick and tell women what they can and can't do with their own body than help the less fortunate.

The right wing takes a Laissez-Faire approach to the economy, which is basically reducing government involvement in the economy. There is nothing religiously wrong with that approach, so unless I am totally missing something I see no basis for this thread.

The right wing's approach is more Go Fuck Yourself than Laissez-Faire.

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 4th, 2017, 12:51 PM
mattsmith48
Unless you have something reasonable or respectful to say, don't say anything at all. Your little rant here just shows your closed-mindedness and ignorance towards other viewpoints and does absolutely nothing to counter my claims. Now if you want to write a reasonable and valid post as to how I am breaking my religious principles, please do, but I am not stooping down to the level of ignorance and illogic you showed in your previous post.

Thank you and have a nice day!

Vlerchan
January 4th, 2017, 02:24 PM
Under the Obama administration, the country has more than DOUBLED the national debt in just under eight years. That's more than George Bush has added in his eight years.
Of course right-wing politicians can also induce increases in the national debt. The national debt tripled under Reagan. Under H. W. it increased by half.

But this entire line of reasoning is disingenuous. The national debt doubled in response to a crisis that wasn't Obama's doing. That should be obvious to even the most casual of analysis'.

- Supply-side Keynesian, Debt-hawk.

Porpoise101
January 4th, 2017, 05:25 PM
It depends on the religion. In Islam, for example, if you do not have social welfare then you are doing something wrong. Even in Catholic-based countries I think there is a tradition of alms-giving (please correct me if I am wrong).

In the US at least, the majority religion of the colonials was one of the various Protestant branches. They didn't want to kill each other, so the politics became "don't step on each others' toes." Additionally, some Protestant sects have had this thing called Protestant work ethic, and this has also been passed down today. This is maybe a small reason why many religious Americans aren't into Left politics.

Larger than that is the fact that they dislike the Left due to the historical issues with socialism. Many religious immigrants fled from communist persecution and they have bad memories of that. American people still associate distribution with the feared Reds so that is an issue for home-grown people.

mattsmith48
January 4th, 2017, 06:54 PM
mattsmith48
Unless you have something reasonable or respectful to say, don't say anything at all. Your little rant here just shows your closed-mindedness and ignorance towards other viewpoints and does absolutely nothing to counter my claims. Now if you want to write a reasonable and valid post as to how I am breaking my religious principles, please do, but I am not stooping down to the level of ignorance and illogic you showed in your previous post.

Thank you and have a nice day!

Might not be respectful, but its true. You can't afford health insurance they tell you ''Go fuck yourself''. You can't afford his medication because some asshole raised the prize by 5000% overnight, ''Go fuck yourself''. you have to work 3 jobs to feed your kids ''Go fuck yourself''. You can't go to college because its to expensive ''Go fuck yourself''. You can't pay your student loan ''Go fuck yourself''. You can't pay your medical bills ''Go fuck yourself''. Does it sound like something Jesus would do?

brandon9
January 4th, 2017, 09:10 PM
Being against gay marriage and abortion, but supportive of tax breaks for businesses and being against welfare is not hypocritical. I really don't know why you would even think such.

The right wing takes a Laissez-Faire approach to the economy, which is basically reducing government involvement in the economy. There is nothing religiously wrong with that approach, so unless I am totally missing something I see no basis for this thread.

I agree with your point here. Well said. Businesses earn their money through hard work and massive efforts. I should know, because my father has one. I helped him start it. Businesses shouldn't be taxed out the ass any more so than the rich should be. They all earned their money.

The Democratic party is more a centre-right party than a left wing party, and Hillary Clinton is a conservative with some decency.

This is a joke, right? If Hillary Clinton is "conservative" then I'm a flying purple elephant from the planet Neptune. And she's quite far from decent. She's a disgrace to the United States of America, and should be in prison.

I don't think Jesus would agree. For conservatives its more important to tell men where they can and can't put their dick and tell women what they can and can't do with their own body than help the less fortunate.

1) What does Jesus have to do with it? As a non-religious Republican, this just escapes me. I don't see him wandering down to the polls on election day, filling out his little ballot card and watching as the machine verifies it before attaching his "I Voted" sticker to his robe and meandering off to go teach Bible study. American politics deal with living Americans, not religious figures.
2) Conservatives are concerned with instilling values in their children and within society, morals and ethics. Yes, those values tend to overlap with those presented by mainstream religion in America; however, that does not mean everything is based off Biblical value for conservatives. There is an innate interest in maintaining civil order, personal freedoms, moral codes, etc. among conservatives. The way you even talk about the topic at hand betrays your ignorance of what 3/4 of the shit you're criticizing actually stands for.
3) "Helping the less fortunate" is a bullshit card. I have been working two jobs since the day I was old enough to get them, over 2 years ago. I worked my way up. I earned my money in honest labor. I get pissed off when money I EARNED is taken out of my paycheck in the name of "helping the less fortunate" by providing them their welfare benefits. Anybody can be successful, fortunate, whatever you choose to call it, if they work hard for it. The fact of the matter is, most people don't, they just ride the system and thrive off the work and earnings of everyone else, then bitch that they're "underprivileged" and that I as a upper middle class white male was born with the silver spoon of privilege in my mouth. Yet funny, isn't it, that I don't qualify for FAFSA loans to go to college because my family makes $100k a year, regardless of the fact that my parents refuse to cosign college loans for me. Funny how that priviledge works, yeah? I'm so entitled compared to the "less fortunate" who take everyone else's money and can go to college with 75% of their cost paid out because they're "underprivileged." Get the fuck out. When you go to college, work two jobs to pay for it, and still realize that Joe Blow from section 8 is going to be given $10000 a year toward his education by the federal government because he's a fuck-off student barely scraping by with a 2.5 GPA, but you won't get shit because you live in a 2 story house on land with 5 vehicles and a RV and worked your ass off in school for a 4.5 GPA to be 20th in your graduating class, then come talk to me about college and helping the "poor" who are fully capable of digging themselves out of the "mess" they claim to be in. Smfh.

The right wing's approach is more Go Fuck Yourself than Laissez-Faire.

Lmao. No, dude, "go fuck yourself" is what the whining left-wing is telling the right at the moment. For example, the anti-Trump movements. Destructive riots. Mass protests. All equals "go fuck yourself, right wing."

You can't afford health insurance they tell you ''Go fuck yourself''. You can't afford his medication because some asshole raised the prize by 5000% overnight, ''Go fuck yourself''. you have to work 3 jobs to feed your kids ''Go fuck yourself''. You can't go to college because its to expensive ''Go fuck yourself''. You can't pay your student loan ''Go fuck yourself''. You can't pay your medical bills ''Go fuck yourself''. Does it sound like something Jesus would do?

1) 90% of the current issues with health insurance and medication are a direct result of the miserable fuck-up that is Obamacare. He really did us right with that one.... "Go fuck yourself, America!"
2) I counter that. I could feed kids off one of my jobs working 25 hours a week at $10 an hour. Would they be eating prime cut beef every day? No, but they'd be eating. The problem is that people have a champagne taste on a beer budget. I'm sure you've heard that saying before.
3) I've already talked about college and loans. The people who get fucked aren't those who you call "less fortunate", nor the rich people. It is the middle class like me who gets fucked over by college debt, because we can't ride the system the entire way through OR have mommy and daddy tossing out $100k for us to go fuck off in a fraternity for 4 years.
4) And, finally, where's Jesus's "I Voted" sticker?

Porpoise101
January 4th, 2017, 09:47 PM
My last post discussed things from a mostly Christian perspective. However, the US and Canada have many different religious groups.

Let's talk Jews. This group is pretty interesting because I don't know much about it. From what I do know, conservative Jews tend to like the economic freedom, being pro-Israel, and supporting traditional values. Many Jews aren't conservative as well; I think it is a majority liberal group because they tend to live in more urbanised areas.

Muslims are the same as Jews from my personal experience (political views-wise). I would say they are liberal-leaning for the same reasons. Yet, many of the conservative Muslims I know support the right because of lower taxes and conservative values.

Hindus are weird. Some older ones are right wing because they are flat out discriminatory in my view. Yet, many of them are leftist because they are intimidated by the right and live in diverse areas. I also personally believe that the statist system in India has something to do with it.

All of these religions and Christianity support charity. For an economic rightist, the ideal society would not need welfare because people would be free to make wealth and give money to charity to take care of the poor. Many religions mandate charity, so I can understand why someone wouldn't want to give a lot of income to charity and then taxes. In other words, if you are being godly, why have the government do it for you?

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 4th, 2017, 10:49 PM
You can't afford health insurance they tell you ''Go fuck yourself''.So, should we follow the left-wing route of forcing people to buy insurance and supporting politics that monopolizes the healthcare business?
You have to work 3 jobs to feed your kids ''Go fuck yourself''. You can't go to college because its to expensive ''Go fuck yourself''. There are thousands of Christian charities and churches dedicated to helping the less fortunate, without wasteful government bureaucracy being involved.
You can't pay your student loan ''Go fuck yourself''. Maybe you shouldn't of majored in gender studies and actually try to be smart with your money?
You can't pay your medical bills ''Go fuck yourself''. Refer back to the thousands of Christian charities and churches dedicated to helping the less fortunate.
Does it sound like something Jesus would do?
It is funny how all your previous posts painted Christianity and Jesus as inherently evil, yet now you are suddenly playing the "Jesus was great!" card.

Let me give you a lesson on the subject of Jesus' teachings. He did repeatedly stress charity towards the poor, but he never promoted nor condoned forced giving, which is basically social welfare. He taught that people should be supportive of the poor, but he also taught that the poor should work for that support and actually try to survive on their own. The Bible is very condemning of laziness. Ever heard the phrase "If you don't work, you don't eat"? That originated from the New Testament and is a Christian doctrine. So to sum up, Christianity supports voluntary giving towards people that try their hardest but still need it. Christianity does not support forcing people to give towards others, many of whom being fully capable of supporting themselves but choosing not to do so, and the given money being wastefully handled.
It depends on the religion. In Islam, for example, if you do not have social welfare then you are doing something wrong. Even in Catholic-based countries I think there is a tradition of alms-giving (please correct me if I am wrong). I'm not for sure of your question, but almost all branches of Christianity stress charity as one of the biggest duties of both the Christian and the churches, so your statement is likely true.
Let's talk Jews. This group is pretty interesting because I don't know much about it. From what I do know, conservative Jews tend to like the economic freedom, being pro-Israel, and supporting traditional values. Judaism, as far as I can tell from my readings of the Old Testament, is basically identical with Christianity in terms of religious principles of charity. Give towards all the needy regardless of religion, race, or other characteristics.
All of these religions and Christianity support charity. For an economic rightist, the ideal society would not need welfare because people would be free to make wealth and give money to charity to take care of the poor. Many religions mandate charity, so I can understand why someone wouldn't want to give a lot of income to charity and then taxes. In other words, if you are being godly, why have the government do it for you?
Good assessment of the situation, took the words right out of my mouth.

NewLeafsFan
January 4th, 2017, 11:15 PM
Well, let's disagree.

1. I know plenty of Democratic voters who are against same sex marriage, equal rights for same-sex couples. Infract, the Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton was against same-sex marriage until magically the years of 2015/2016 she only "agreed" with it to gain votes. If you do not believe me, there are about 20 years of videos to prove my point.

2. Right wing historically has given tax breaks to the wealthy, but I would too seeing how they are in the highest tax bracket. Let's also talk about half of the scandals the left wing has been involved in over the years. A lot of money laundering scandals...

3. I'll give an example of how left wing Economics are not good. Cuba, Soviet Union, Venezuela, Brazil, North Korea, the list goes on. Under the Obama administration, the country has more than DOUBLED the national debt in just under eight years. That's more than George Bush has added in his eight years.

Just to clarify, myself, the Democratic Party of America, and the Liberal Party of Canada are center-left parties. Are believes are close to capitalist than we are Communist. Communism is in most of the countries you used in your anti left wing argument.

I'll take your word for it about Secretary Clinton being against gay marrage. If that is true, lets be glad that she realized that her economic beliefs are far more important than her ideas on social issues. My main argument is about religious people being misrepresented by their vote. Clearly Clinton see agrees with me.

Also their are issues far more important that debt which I'm sure was mostly caused by inflation. I would be much more concerned about unemployment which has gone down considerably thanks to the Obama administration. American unemployment has been considerably better under Democrats, which Trump admitted.

Finally, if you want to talk about left wing scandels go ahead. We don't have WWII, the Haulocost, in our history. We also aren't supported by racists.

Being against gay marriage and abortion, but supportive of tax breaks for businesses and being against welfare is not hypocritical. I really don't know why you would even think such.

The right wing takes a Laissez-Faire approach to the economy, which is basically reducing government involvement in the economy. There is nothing religiously wrong with that approach, so unless I am totally missing something I see no basis for this thread.

First of all, a laissez faire economic approach was common before the first world war. I'd like to think that we can do better now than we could do 100 years ago.

The problem is, when you give big corporations tax breaks the middle and lower class has to make up for that. Thats why most religious leaders including the pope and the dalai lama believe if left wing economics. When you don't give corporatiins tax breaks you can put more money into social assistance. Its more charitable. Its better to be charitable than pretend that unemployed people don't need help.

The Democratic party is more a centre-right party than a left wing party, and Hillary Clinton is a conservative.

You are incorrect on this point. The Democratic Party of the United Stated is centre left. The Republicans are the Conservative centre-right to right wing.

I agree with your point here. Well said. Businesses earn their money through hard work and massive efforts. I should know, because my father has one. I helped him start it.

The whole point of left wing economics is that everyong has to pay their share. There are a lot of hard working people that dont get tax breaks. They are the ones that work hard in every other profession. Where's their tax break?

My last post discussed things from a mostly Christian perspective. However, the US and Canada have many different religious groups.

Let's talk Jews. This group is pretty interesting because I don't know much about it. From what I do know, conservative Jews tend to like the economic freedom, being pro-Israel, and supporting traditional values. Many Jews aren't conservative as well; I think it is a majority liberal group because they tend to live in more urbanised areas.

Muslims are the same as Jews from my personal experience (political views-wise). I would say they are liberal-leaning for the same reasons. Yet, many of the conservative Muslims I know support the right because of lower taxes and conservative values.

Hindus are weird. Some older ones are right wing because they are flat out discriminatory in my view. Yet, many of them are leftist because they are intimidated by the right and live in diverse areas. I also personally believe that the statist system in India has something to do with it.

All of these religions and Christianity support charity. For an economic rightist, the ideal society would not need welfare because people would be free to make wealth and give money to charity to take care of the poor. Many religions mandate charity, so I can understand why someone wouldn't want to give a lot of income to charity and then taxes. In other words, if you are being godly, why have the government do it for you?

The point of this post was to agree or disagree with the fact that religious vote on social issues and dont look at the economic side of things while the pope and other religious figures are left wing when it comes to the economy. Its not necessary to look at each religious group one by one.

Posts merged. Use the multiquote button. ~Mars

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 4th, 2017, 11:20 PM
Thats why most religious leaders including the pope and the dalai lama believe if left wing economics. And that is also why most Catholics dislike the current Pope.
When you don't give corporatiins tax breaks you can put more money into social assistance. Its more charitable. Its better to be charitable than pretend that unemployed people don't need help. If you do give corporations tax breaks, then you let those unemployed get hired at those corporations, and then the government gets even more tax money from the increased productivity of businesses and more people buying taxable goods. Those who are still unemployed will be supported by private charities, which would have even more money to support people because people will have more money to donate.
The point of this post was to agree or disagree with the fact that religious vote on social issues and dont look at the economic side of things while the pope and other religious figures are left wing when it comes to the economy. Its not necessary to look at each religious group one by one. Porpoise101 did no wrong with his post. Every religion and every religious group have different approaches to charity and how it is handled. It would be ignorant to assume all religions share the exact same opinions of the matter.

And the current Pope is really left-wing on everything. I wouldn't be surprised if he started allowing gay marriages and transsexual priests.

NewLeafsFan
January 4th, 2017, 11:36 PM
And that is also why most Catholics dislike the current Pope.
If you do give corporations tax breaks, then you let those unemployed get hired at those corporations, and then the government gets even more tax money from the increased productivity of businesses and more people buying taxable goods. Those who are still unemployed will be supported by private charities, which would have even more money to support people because people will have more money to donate.
Porpoise101 did no wrong with his post. Every religion and every religious group have different approaches to charity and how it is handled. It would be ignorant to assume all religions share the exact same opinions of the matter.

And the current Pope is really left-wing on everything. I wouldn't be surprised if he started allowing gay marriages and transsexual priests.

The only people that dislike the current pope are those that are extremely close minded (which included many Cardinals). Most of my family and friends are excited at the possibilities of a Progressive Pope.

I really hope that you are right. Everyone should be able to follow their calling despite whats in their pants. Who knows, maybe women could be popes some day.

I agree that nothing wrong was said about economics and business which is how most Conservatives justify not being charitable. I understand the Conservative way of thinking. How else would I know that its disfunctional?

Everyone is religious to a certain degree. I'm just saying that those would are extremely religious are almost always Conservative. It doesn't matter if you are Christan, Muslim, Hindu, ect.

mattsmith48
January 5th, 2017, 01:11 AM
I agree with your point here. Well said. Businesses earn their money through hard work and massive efforts. I should know, because my father has one. I helped him start it. Businesses shouldn't be taxed out the ass any more so than the rich should be. They all earned their money.

If you make more money you should pay more taxes that money then use that money for people who need it.

This is a joke, right? If Hillary Clinton is "conservative" then I'm a flying purple elephant from the planet Neptune. And she's quite far from decent. She's a disgrace to the United States of America, and should be in prison.

What does Hillary Clinton being a disgrace to the US and you thinking she should be in prison as to do with her being a conservative?

1) What does Jesus have to do with it? As a non-religious Republican, this just escapes me. I don't see him wandering down to the polls on election day, filling out his little ballot card and watching as the machine verifies it before attaching his "I Voted" sticker to his robe and meandering off to go teach Bible study. American politics deal with living Americans, not religious figures.

This is a thread about religious people voting against their beliefs I think Jesus is kinda revelant to the discussion.


2) Conservatives are concerned with instilling values in their children and within society, morals and ethics. Yes, those values tend to overlap with those presented by mainstream religion in America; however, that does not mean everything is based off Biblical value for conservatives. There is an innate interest in maintaining civil order, personal freedoms, moral codes, etc. among conservatives. The way you even talk about the topic at hand betrays your ignorance of what 3/4 of the shit you're criticizing actually stands for.

Everyone not only conservatives want to transmit good values to their children, what those values can change depending on your political views, religion, ect... The problem I have is conservative who hate on gay people and women having sex that doesn't end up with a baby poping out and using their religion as an excuse for doing that.


3) "Helping the less fortunate" is a bullshit card. I have been working two jobs since the day I was old enough to get them, over 2 years ago. I worked my way up. I earned my money in honest labor. I get pissed off when money I EARNED is taken out of my paycheck in the name of "helping the less fortunate" by providing them their welfare benefits.
Anybody can be successful, fortunate, whatever you choose to call it, if they work hard for it. The fact of the matter is, most people don't, they just ride the system and thrive off the work and earnings of everyone else, then bitch that they're "underprivileged" and that I as a upper middle class white male was born with the silver spoon of privilege in my mouth. Yet funny, isn't it, that I don't qualify for FAFSA loans to go to college because my family makes $100k a year, regardless of the fact that my parents refuse to cosign college loans for me. Funny how that priviledge works, yeah? I'm so entitled compared to the "less fortunate" who take everyone else's money and can go to college with 75% of their cost paid out because they're "underprivileged." Get the fuck out. When you go to college, work two jobs to pay for it, and still realize that Joe Blow from section 8 is going to be given $10000 a year toward his education by the federal government because he's a fuck-off student barely scraping by with a 2.5 GPA, but you won't get shit because you live in a 2 story house on land with 5 vehicles and a RV and worked your ass off in school for a 4.5 GPA to be 20th in your graduating class, then come talk to me about college and helping the "poor" who are fully capable of digging themselves out of the "mess" they claim to be in. Smfh.

Im in the same situation than you my parents make to much money so I would have to pay, which is the reason Im working instead of going to university. Instead of sitting around complaining about less fortunate people getting their university paid by the government because their parents can't pay for it, Im fighting for that crazy idea that education should be free for everyone



1) 90% of the current issues with health insurance and medication are a direct result of the miserable fuck-up that is Obamacare. He really did us right with that one.... "Go fuck yourself, America!"

Obamacare is not perfect, but atlease it gives health insurance to people who need it, its better than letting people die or go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills, a single payer system would fix those issues. For the price of medication its more a result of a lack of regulation than Obamacare.

2) I counter that. I could feed kids off one of my jobs working 25 hours a week at $10 an hour. Would they be eating prime cut beef every day? No, but they'd be eating. The problem is that people have a champagne taste on a beer budget. I'm sure you've heard that saying before.

Feeding your kids is one example with that $10 an hour you also need to eat, you need to pay your rent, you need to pay the bills,... also I don't think its recommended to feed Kraft dinner to your kids every meal.


3) I've already talked about college and loans. The people who get fucked aren't those who you call "less fortunate", nor the rich people. It is the middle class like me who gets fucked over by college debt, because we can't ride the system the entire way through OR have mommy and daddy tossing out $100k for us to go fuck off in a fraternity for 4 years.

Either way your not going to college unless you work first or mommy and daddy pay for it. Ive already talked about that crazy idea of having the government pay for everyone not only the less fortunate.


4) And, finally, where's Jesus's "I Voted" sticker?
Why do you guys give ''I voted'' stickers to people unless you let 5 year old kids vote giving out stickers is useless. Also if you are letting 5 year old vote please tell us because it would explain that Trump thing to the rest of the world.

So, should we follow the left-wing route of forcing people to buy insurance and supporting politics that monopolizes the healthcare business?
No you should follow the left-wing route of giving free health care to everyone as a right.

There are thousands of Christian charities and churches dedicated to helping the less fortunate, without wasteful government bureaucracy being involved.

1. Those are good Christians actually following Jesus.
2. Because its so much better to waste the government resousces on useless wars.

Maybe you shouldn't of majored in gender studies and actually try to be smart with your money?

You can't be smart with your money if you don't have any.


Refer back to the thousands of Christian charities and churches dedicated to helping the less fortunate.

Question, what stops those Christian charities from not helping people because they are e.g. Gay, atheist, they practice another religion, or for any other reason. Also those charities don't have that much money and can't help everyone the government can.

It is funny how all your previous posts painted Christianity and Jesus as inherently evil, yet now you are suddenly playing the "Jesus was great!" card.

They are parts of Christianity that are bad, your God who is a mass murderer with a rage problem, The bible constantly tells you to hate and kill people for stupid reason. But they are a few good parts in it, some of Jesus' teachings are examples of that.


Let me give you a lesson on the subject of Jesus' teachings. He did repeatedly stress charity towards the poor, but he never promoted nor condoned forced giving, which is basically social welfare. He taught that people should be supportive of the poor, but he also taught that the poor should work for that support and actually try to survive on their own. The Bible is very condemning of laziness. Ever heard the phrase "If you don't work, you don't eat"? That originated from the New Testament and is a Christian doctrine. So to sum up, Christianity supports voluntary giving towards people that try their hardest but still need it. Christianity does not support forcing people to give towards others, many of whom being fully capable of supporting themselves but choosing not to do so, and the given money being wastefully handled.

The New testament say that if you help the poor you will be repayed by going to heaven, its a choice like any rule in the bible is a choice, but if you are a Christian and you want to go to heaven is it really a choice?

You are incorrect on this point. The Democratic Party of the United Stated is centre left. The Republicans are the Conservative centre-right to right wing.

The republicans are at the extreme right, the crazy/racist part, if you look at the Democratic Party' positions, policies, politicians... they are more centre-right, they are some members of the party who are on the left wing, but in most cases its more because they don't have a choice.

And the current Pope is really left-wing on everything. I wouldn't be surprised if he started allowing gay marriages and transsexual priests.

Don't worry he's not going to allow gay marriage, because then all his priest would quit so they can get married.

Posts merged. ~Mars

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 5th, 2017, 10:01 AM
The New testament say that if you help the poor you will be repayed by going to heaven, its a choice like any rule in the bible is a choice, but if you are a Christian and you want to go to heaven is it really a choice? I was waiting for you to say this just so everyone can see how lacking in knowledge you are of Christianity. Charity does not get you to Heaven. No work gets you to Heaven. Your argument is baseless.

Vlerchan
January 5th, 2017, 10:36 AM
If you make more money you should pay more taxes that money then use that money for people who need it.
Considering the output that is actually produced by the micro-tax and macro-tax literature, it is rather sad that this is what the debate boils down to. For example, are you considering how this affects people's incentives at all?

Maybe you shouldn't of majored in gender studies and actually try to be smart with your money?
People who graduate in Gender Studies earn in-and-around median income, just a lot less than other college graduates. It's more-so the people who don't graduate high school, or just graduate high school, that end up in trouble; and, being as how that is quite conditional on a number of factors that are outside of your control - how much do your parents earn, did you attend pre-school, etc. - it is probably fair enough to be sympathetic to these people.

What's more is that - in and of itself - being poor prompts you to make worse decisions (Mani et al. 2013 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976)): poverty 'imposes a cognitive load that saps attention and reduces effort'. Even if we ignore the fact that most people are poor for reasons that can usually be found to be outside of their control, I would say that the findings in Mani et al. (2013) would seem to imply that individual-level poverty traps exist, and social assistance is necessary.

NewLeafsFan
January 5th, 2017, 02:29 PM
I was waiting for you to say this just so everyone can see how lacking in knowledge you are of Christianity. Charity does not get you to Heaven. No work gets you to Heaven. Your argument is baseless.

Lets talk about your lack of knowledge of Christianity. It is a well known fact that everyone Christian religion has their own beliefs on how one gets to heaven.

Only some believe that you only get in on faith while others believe that you must believe in God and do good. Others, like myself, believe thst good people go to heaven.

This was never a debate about weather or not you can buy your way into heaven. Its about religious people giving mire thsn the average while voting for politicians who want to cut social programs.

Living For Love
January 5th, 2017, 05:08 PM
[...] good people go to heaven.
It doesn't work like this. I won't say that assumption is entirely false, but basic Christian principles show that's not how one is allowed in Heaven. It's still debatable, though.

----

Regarding the OP first post, I would say I don't see why one's Christian values have to interfere in political, social and economic decisions. I can be against gay marriage or against abortion, like you mentioned, but the reasons for me to be against those things might be totally independent from my religion. I also don't see how "rich tax breaks" and limiting "social assistance" are policies against God. The principles we have in the Bible of "helping the poor" and "don't do to other what you don't want other to do to you" are not exclusive to Christianity, Confucius had already enumerated the same principles, roughly, hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Christ message and purpose was something much more important than that. I don't know about Canada, but in my country the Catholic Church finances and helps lots of organisations dedicated to assist disadvantaged people. It's not something that only has to be done by governments.

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 5th, 2017, 07:07 PM
Lets talk about your lack of knowledge of Christianity. It is a well known fact that everyone Christian religion has their own beliefs on how one gets to heaven.

Only some believe that you only get in on faith while others believe that you must believe in God and do good. Others, like myself, believe thst good people go to heaven. First, I am Christian who has frequently studied theology and has a preacher for a grandpa, so I like to think that I don't have a lacking knowledge of Christianity.

Secondly, there are two generally accepted beliefs regarding salvation that the vast majority of Christians believe. One is the belief in salvation entirely by faith, and the other is the belief of a mixture of faith and works. Both have some valid points and I won't get into a debate about it. The belief that salvation is entirely by works is not shared by anyone I know and doctrinally it extremely struggles to remain the Biblical version of Christianity.

This was never a debate about weather or not you can buy your way into heaven. Its about religious people giving mire thsn the average while voting for politicians who want to cut social programs.Well, it is very important to understand religious principles before you start claiming that someone is breaking religious principles. As Living For Love explained masterfully, there is nothing hypocritical for a Christian to be against gay marriage but to support tax breaks. There isn't anything hypocritical for a Christian to be against gay marriage but be against tax breaks. Certain economic policies are not the tenants of Christianity you make them out to be.
I don't know about Canada, but in my country the Catholic Church finances and helps lots of organisations dedicated to assist disadvantaged people. It's not something that only has to be done by governments.Very similar situation in Canada and America, expect that its usually Protestant churches doing the supporting, since Catholicism isn't as strong here as it is in southern Europe.

Porpoise101
January 5th, 2017, 07:44 PM
Its not necessary to look at each religious group one by one.
I would say that it is necessary, simply because each religion and even each sect has unique traditions and duties which goes along with it.

I would generally say that your generalization that "more religious=more conservative" is true, but not because of them being religious. Instead, I'd attribute it to these people being more traditionalist. This is a nuanced difference, but it is a notable one. This would make them more supportive and heavily focused on social conservatism more than anything.

There are plenty of examples of religious people being leftists or liberal. As previously mentioned, there is the Pope. Much of the Catholic vote in the US is now left-ish (it is divided over abortion for the most part). Many immigrants/second generation people are religious and they lean left. This isn't necessarily recent either, as the southern Protestants played a large role in the near-socialist Progressive movement in the 1920s. I myself descend in part from Swedes who made a religious communist colony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Hill_Colony) in the mid 1800s. It just goes to show that the generalization you have placed out there is not really accurate, and hasn't really been the case for hundreds of years.

brandon9
January 5th, 2017, 08:29 PM
If you make more money you should pay more taxes that money then use that money for people who need it.

Let me pose it to you this way. My uncle is a multimillionaire. He made his money over the course of decades, after coming here from South Africa, by creating his own business which has dealings across the world. Honest work, honest effort, just as much so as someone who lays brick or hangs drywall or scrubs the floors at a school. Why should he be forced to pay an astronomical amount of taxes on wealth he worked his entire life to accumulate, simply for the fact that he's got it in the first place? Why should he give that hard earned money of his to someone else, someone he has no connection to, if he does not want to? Why can't that money be allotted to his family instead of your "less fortunate?" He's disgusted at the amount he pays in taxes, and rightly so. Increasing taxes based solely on the fact that the rich are rich is essentially penalizing them for being rich. It's bullshit.

What does Hillary Clinton being a disgrace to the US and you thinking she should be in prison as to do with her being a conservative?

Dude, she isn't a conservative, that's what it has to do with it. In no way, shape, or form is Hillary Clinton a conservative politician. You are just simply wrong in this, there's no way to spin it where she comes off as conservative to anyone who is a true conservative themself. Perhaps, to extreme leftists, she is "conservative" in that she doesn't embrace all their ideals, but make no mistake, she's not conservative from a conservative standpoint.

This is a thread about religious people voting against their beliefs I think Jesus is kinda revelant to the discussion.

No, the morals instilled in the aforementioned religious people are what is relevant to the discussion. Jesus, as real or as metaphorical as he may be depending on your personal beliefs, is not relevant. He is not a living, breathing, voting citizen of any country. Jesus has nothing to do with politics.

Everyone not only conservatives want to transmit good values to their children, what those values can change depending on your political views, religion, ect... The problem I have is conservative who hate on gay people and women having sex that doesn't end up with a baby poping out and using their religion as their excuse for doing that

Ah, but the argument then becomes, what values are good values? To a conservative, traditional values are important. To a liberal, progressive values are important. Conservatives want to preserve a traditional society, while the left wants to change just about everything about society. To build into your statement above and to lead into my next argument, let's talk about gay people. From an average conservative standpoint, homosexuals aren't BAD people, and many conservatives that I know personally are acceptive of them provided the homosexual individuals don't push their beliefs at them. Support for gay marriage is a mixed bag, the super-religious are totally against it as the word of the Bible says marriage is a covenant between man and woman. But, a vast majority of gay people DO push their beliefs into the face of those who do not agree with it, and then become affronted when something is said, 90% of the time in a polite way asking them to drop the topic, agree to disagree, or not express their beliefs physically in front of others as a courtesy. Now, yes, you do have extremists who take offense even to the word "gay" and who target gay individuals, but this group is a minority among the collective. Flip the coin on its head, non-conservatives have mostly taken an "all or nothing" approach to homosexuality. You're either for it or against it, no middle ground. In observation of my own experience in the world, I have never met a gay person who was a conservative.

Im in the same situation than you my parents make to much money so I would have to pay, which is the reason Im working instead of going to university. Instead of sitting around complaining about less fortunate people getting their university paid by the government because their parents can't pay for it, Im fighting for that crazy idea that education should be free for everyone

And how much is your education worth a year? Mine is $25,000 a year without factoring in the cost of living. And that's in-state tuition.

I'm complaining because it is a valid complaint. Like I said, my dad alone makes $100k a year, and my parents can't afford to pay for my education any more so than Joe who's combined family income is $30k a year. Sorry but it's true. Let me point out something that I've discovered recently about education: it's bullshit. I spend hours a week applying for scholarships, and you know what? At least 60% of what I find is restricted for minorities, immigrants, and the "poor." I can say with absolute clarity that most days I'm looking, on a page of 10 MEANINGFUL scholarships (not the "take a photo" kind) at least 6 are designated in some way for a specific group that prevents me from applying. I'm not racist, but seeing 6 out of 10 scholarships with designations of "For African-American applicants", "For Hispanic applicants," etc, it begs questions.

And you're absolutely correct when you say the idea of free education is crazy. It's fucking insane. A college education, be it whatevee degree you decide to pursue, is meant to show that you worked hard, you have a specific knowledge and skill set, you were willing to pay for your advancement in society. The value attached to a college education affects everything from the biggest to the smallest part of the job market. If you devalue the education and make it all free, you're going to fuck the system. You're going to fuck social classes. A doctorate would mean no more than a high school diploma. At that point, it would be education for pursing personal interests, not for securing a job in the world and contributing to society. I'm all for cutting some costs to students, but making college education free and universally accessible is one of the worst ideas in the long, sad history of bad ideas.

Obamacare is not perfect, but atlease it gives health insurance to people who need it, its better than letting people die or go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills, a single payer system would fix those issues. For the price of medication its more a result of a lack of regulation than Obamacare.

People still go bankrupt on Obamacare because of medical bills. Nobody, and I do mean not a single person, that I know is on Obamacare actually likes Obamacare. It is quite possibly the worst fuck-up in policy since No Child Left Behind was enacted.

Feeding your kids is one example with that $10 an hour you also need to eat, you need to pay your rent, you need to pay the bills,... also I don't think its recommended to feed Kraft dinner to your kids every meal.

Exactly how expensive do you think food is? I work at a grocery store, man. I was a cashier for 9 months before I got promoted out of the department. You can buy quality food for not that much money if you shop smart. Use coupons, buy sale items, you can feed a family of 4 food that isn't shit for not that much money in the grand scheme of things. Assuming in a traditional nuclear family household of husband and wife making similar salaries, it is entirely possible to feed everyone, pay rent, pay bills, on that kind of salary. I know people that do it. People I have worked with for 2 years now do it all the time. It's pretty common.

Either way your not going to college unless you work first or mommy and daddy pay for it. Ive already talked about that crazy idea of having the government pay for everyone not only the less fortunate.

The job of the government isn't to pay for everyone though. The job isn't even to support the less fortunate. The role of the government is to run the country, to defend its borders, promote a domestic economy, uphold the rule of law, those kind of things. It is not the job of the government to support people. People need to support themselves, and support the society they live in.

Why do you guys give ''I voted'' stickers to people unless you let 5 year old kids vote giving out stickers is useless. Also if you are letting 5 year old vote please tell us because it would explain that Trump thing to the rest of the world.

It's symbolic of national pride, that you care enough about the future of your country to exercise your constitutional right to vote. And I'm sorry, I don't think Trump voters would have behaved the way Hillary voters did if the election had been flipped. You wouldn't see meetings about secession, riots and mass protests in the streets. The infantile voters are people like that who have no clue how the political system works.

You can't be smart with your money if you don't have any.

1) Most people who don't have money HAD money at some point and were not smart with it to begin with, I.e. the people living in tenaments driving 2016 BMWs. Or people who claim to be "poor", yet have 7 pairs of $200 shoes.
2) If you don't have money, you can get money. This is kind of like the panhandlers with the signs that say "no job need money" - motherfuckers can get a job if they look hard enough. Go wash dishes, trim bushes, SOMETHING other than stand on a corner begging for money. I personally don't give a dime to people like that. Point is, people are capable of working and earning money, but they just don't apply themselves where they can. And its bullshit.

Question, what stops those Christian charities from not helping people because they are e.g. Gay, atheist, they practice another religion, or for any other reason. Also those charities don't have that much money and can't help everyone the government can.

Again, the government's job is not to provide for everyone. That's the purpose of charities, to help the "less fortunate." But I guarantee you that for every Christian charity that denies help to someone because they're gay or atheist, there are 3 more charities out there that are designed solely to service those groups and who would turn the Christian away in a heartbeat.

They are parts of Christianity that are bad, your God who is a mass murderer with a rage problem, The bible constantly tells you to hate and kill people for stupid reason. But they are a few good parts in it, some of Jesus' teachings are examples of that.

As someone who was born a Baptist and renounced my faith, I can tell you that any Christian would take heavy offense to that, and that you're not really correct about the Bible. Obviously you haven't read Exodus, in which Moses receives the 10 Commandments, one of which specifies against killing. And, from a historical standpoint, the Bible details much of what we believe of early human history, and events surrounding much of it occur during a time when death was the penalty for most offenses, petty or large. That was how society worked back then.

The New testament say that if you help the poor you will be repayed by going to heaven, its a choice like any rule in the bible is a choice, but if you are a Christian and you want to go to heaven is it really a choice?

Yes, it is a choice. The Bible specifies a number of points regarding one's entry to heaven. You can be a devout Christian your entire life and never give a penny to the poor, and still be admitted to heaven.

The republicans are at the extreme right, the crazy/racist part, if you look at the Democratic Party' positions, policies, politicians... they are more centre-right, they are some members of the party who are on the left wing, but in most cases its more because they don't have a choice.

Wrong. Again. About 3 times over.

1) Republicans aren't all extreme right, that's a logical fallacy, a hasty generalization as incorrect as if I were to say all Democrats were extreme leftists. People fall all across the spectrum, it's just a matter of which side you agree with more. Most voters are in the middle ground.
2) Extreme minority. Republicans aren't racist as a collective whole, and this is a generalization that continuously pisses me off. You have Democrats that are racist. Independents that are racist. Racism isn't contained to a single party, nor a single race. I'm sick of the race argument in America, people bitch about it too much when in reality, most of the people claiming to be discriminated against are the groups working directly or indirectly to keep racism alive.
3) The Democratic party is NOT center-right, dude, I am baffled as to how you can even believe this is possible. I really have no idea what your thinking is behind this absurb claim.

NewLeafsFan
January 5th, 2017, 11:59 PM
It doesn't work like this. I won't say that assumption is entirely false, but basic Christian principles show that's not how one is allowed in Heaven. It's still debatable, though.

----

Regarding the OP first post, I would say I don't see why one's Christian values have to interfere in political, social and economic decisions. I can be against gay marriage or against abortion, like you mentioned, but the reasons for me to be against those things might be totally independent from my religion. I also don't see how "rich tax breaks" and limiting "social assistance" are policies against God. The principles we have in the Bible of "helping the poor" and "don't do to other what you don't want other to do to you" are not exclusive to Christianity, Confucius had already enumerated the same principles, roughly, hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Christ message and purpose was something much more important than that. I don't know about Canada, but in my country the Catholic Church finances and helps lots of organisations dedicated to assist disadvantaged people. It's not something that only has to be done by governments.

Clearly you only read the part of my explanation that you quoted.

This is NOT a debate about how to get to heaven.

NewLeafsFan
January 6th, 2017, 12:08 AM
Let me pose it to you this way. My uncle is a multimillionaire. He made his money over the course of decades, after coming here from South Africa, by creating his own business which has dealings across the world. Honest work, honest effort, just as much so as someone who lays brick or hangs drywall or scrubs the floors at a school. Why should he be forced to pay an astronomical amount of taxes on wealth he worked his entire life to accumulate, simply for the fact that he's got it in the first place? Why should he give that hard earned money of his to someone else, someone he has no connection to, if he does not want to? Why can't that money be allotted to his family instead of your "less fortunate?" He's disgusted at the amount he pays in taxes, and rightly so. Increasing taxes based solely on the fact that the rich are rich is essentially penalizing them for being rich. It's bullshit.

If your uncles not religious than he has nothing to do with this debate. If you would like to continue talking about taxes, which are extremely low in the USA compared to most countries, than start your own thread. Believe me, I will respond.

Just be glad that your uncles not from Mexico or that he doesn't live in Canada or a different socialist country.

NewLeafsFan
January 6th, 2017, 12:13 AM
First, I am Christian who has frequently studied theology and has a preacher for a grandpa, so I like to think that I don't have a lacking knowledge of Christianity.

Secondly, there are two generally accepted beliefs regarding salvation that the vast majority of Christians believe. One is the belief in salvation entirely by faith, and the other is the belief of a mixture of faith and works. Both have some valid points and I won't get into a debate about it. The belief that salvation is entirely by works is not shared by anyone I know and doctrinally it extremely struggles to remain the Biblical version of Christianity.

Well, it is very important to understand religious principles before you start claiming that someone is breaking religious principles. As Living For Love explained masterfully, there is nothing hypocritical for a Christian to be against gay marriage but to support tax breaks. There isn't anything hypocritical for a Christian to be against gay marriage but be against tax breaks. Certain economic policies are not the tenants of Christianity you make them out to be.
Very similar situation in Canada and America, expect that its usually Protestant churches doing the supporting, since Catholicism isn't as strong here as it is in southern Europe.

Good for your grandpa, that is a very comendable career.

My point still stands that you lack knowledge of the different strands of Christianity. I never said that you didn't know your own beliefs.

Dalcourt
January 6th, 2017, 12:28 AM
Good for your grandpa, that is a very comendable career.

My point still stands that you lack knowledge of the different strands of Christianity. I never said that you didn't know your own beliefs.

Let me tell you one thing. Those people who vote like you described in your first post vote according to their Christian beliefs. It's totally correct to act and feel like that as it is righteous before their God. Are there are other Christians who interpret this religion otherwise? Yes of course and those would never agree to these political views. That's where the word belief comes into action they believe they are right and won't be persuaded it could be otherwise and it's the same with that other Christians who believe something different. Wars had been fought between Christians over their different beliefs...it never will change anything since as long as you believe you are right you are right.

As a result you can say certain Christian denominations would vote against their beliefs voting like that and therefore the majority of those might not vote like that and for other denominations it's within their set of belief.

Uniquemind
January 6th, 2017, 02:42 AM
My last post discussed things from a mostly Christian perspective. However, the US and Canada have many different religious groups.

Let's talk Jews. This group is pretty interesting because I don't know much about it. From what I do know, conservative Jews tend to like the economic freedom, being pro-Israel, and supporting traditional values. Many Jews aren't conservative as well; I think it is a majority liberal group because they tend to live in more urbanised areas.

Muslims are the same as Jews from my personal experience (political views-wise). I would say they are liberal-leaning for the same reasons. Yet, many of the conservative Muslims I know support the right because of lower taxes and conservative values.

Hindus are weird. Some older ones are right wing because they are flat out discriminatory in my view. Yet, many of them are leftist because they are intimidated by the right and live in diverse areas. I also personally believe that the statist system in India has something to do with it.

All of these religions and Christianity support charity. For an economic rightist, the ideal society would not need welfare because people would be free to make wealth and give money to charity to take care of the poor. Many religions mandate charity, so I can understand why someone wouldn't want to give a lot of income to charity and then taxes. In other words, if you are being godly, why have the government do it for you?


The answer to that is that by having it in taxes, it forces the "ungodly" to generate cash flow, that otherwise only the willingly charitable would give.

That's the difference.

It's about steady, replenish able cash flow for budget prediction reasons.


--

That being said I'll add my opinions on this later in a subsequent post. There's a lot to be said here given the conversation has been here for a while.

P.S. I know white people who got FAFSA too, so it's more of a how much is your household making thing.

---

EDIT:

So I think a major flaw in conversations such as these is not the label of left/right, liberal/conservative, but the over-generalization that follows.

That being said, labels have meaning in this world because people or rather the human brain likes to categorize things to then base discernment off of a series of dichotomies.

Religion is similar, you'll notice many of the major religions start with a simple core/creed, and throughout time it begins to fray and branch off into splinter-groups with sudden differences. Politics does something similar but change is more accepted as inevitable given that it's tied to the rational idea that people have political views based on ever-changing interests in a single point in time.

Religion differs in the sense that it tends to have eternal unchanging core of views and teachings throughout ALL of time, differences only being accepted at a very very slow rate of change, in some sense it appeals to a "conservative" brain that likes a set of ideals that are slow to change.


Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be very free-flowing people, much less organized in my opinion, but no less valuable, and they tend to have histories or individual stories that have made peace with some sort of rebellion against an establishment that shunned them at some point in time (blacks, gays, artists-musician types). But many are religious as well just in a much more expressive way.


Conservatives, tend to like order and structure more, in some ways I find them to be more collectivistic as a political movement, albeit many might have differing views, not a significant amount really stray from the herd mentality in a public way, if they have differing views they tend to simmer under the surface expression and come out in passive ways subconsciously, or until opportunities arise. However I think they have a harder type empathizing hypothetical scenarios.


This is where religion comes in because it's all about hypothetical and abstract thoughts interpretations, and then you get the scenario we see here.

Vlerchan
January 6th, 2017, 07:26 AM
Like I said, my dad alone makes $100k a year, and my parents can't afford to pay for my education any more so than Joe who's combined family income is $30k a year.
[Redacted, can be read in full in response below]

It's fucking insane. A college education, be it whatevee degree you decide to pursue, is meant to show that you worked hard, you have a specific knowledge and skill set, you were willing to pay for your advancement in society. The value attached to a college education affects everything from the biggest to the smallest part of the job market. If you devalue the education and make it all free, you're going to fuck the system.
You could - y'know - maintain a constant level of difficulty so that your degree still acts as a relevant signal of your ability. That, and only allow a certain amount of students in, dependent on their grades; and, we all recognize that some institutions are better or worse than others. My class has had a failure and dropout rate that is greater than 60% so far. I'm a senior in college - last year, only 26% of the initial class ended up graduating. Look at countries like Germany and like Sweden and like France, free education and you don't see that their degrees are completely devalued, because they still signal ability.

You are acting as if once you pay your fees that you will just be handed a degree. This might be true in the United States - I understand you have serious issues with grade inflation - but, if that was the case, then you are literally arguing that we should aim to be stopping the poor kids from getting degrees; since they can't afford to pay.

A doctorate would mean no more than a high school diploma.
Economics PhD programs don't charge tuition and typically pay a generous stipend to their students; 30,000 usually - though I have seen up to 50,000 (Zurich). This has not resulted in a complete devaluation of economics PhDs - most programs usually have a failure rate approach 40% in the first year.

This is because you are not purchasing a degree; there is work involved once you enter, a competent education system should be relying on people to do the work - and not just be able to pay.

brandon9
January 6th, 2017, 08:06 AM
If your uncles not religious than he has nothing to do with this debate. If you would like to continue talking about taxes, which are extremely low in the USA compared to most countries, than start your own thread. Believe me, I will respond.

Just be glad that your uncles not from Mexico or that he doesn't live in Canada or a different socialist country.

He's a Christian, has been his whole life. Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things, because I'm sure someone will come along and quote this saying he's a bigoted, entitled immigrant who's too greedy to "give to the poor." He left South Africa to have a chance at a worthwhile life, a goal he achieved 400 times over in my opinion. And religious as he is, he still doesn't feel the compulsion to "give to the poor." He was dirt poor and he made millions by working for it. Proof that anyone can, instead of milking the system for welfare and demanding the rich pay more in taxes in order to support their asses. And, as I recall, I'm not the one who brought up taxes originally, so don't bust my balls over that line of discussion - you were the one who first mentioned taxes in this thread, and I quote:
However, the right wing also gives the rich tax breaks and limit social assistance. Right wing economics are not god like.
Your inclusion of the above attack on the right perfectly well gives me the freedom to discuss taxes in this thread. You mentioned it in your opening post, I mean seriously?

brandon9
January 6th, 2017, 08:54 AM
Your parents can certainly afford to help out.

I am also willing to bet that you will have textbooks, and will be able to relocate so that your commute doesn't take up four hours of your day - which makes it difficult to hold down a part-time job without missing classes*, and you'll have a laptop**, and you won't have to take days off of college to mind siblings, and you won't have to deal with the stress of your institution hounding you for money - or the stress that your parents bring home because they are worried about how they are going to pay to fix the car. These are just the small and everyday things that people lower incomes have to face***.

Scholarships free up the funds for all sorts of tangible benefits, like those. Like others that I haven't mentioned. Now, I don't support free third-level education. The reason being is that it fails at its primary aim - getting kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds into higher education. But not for a moment do I think that people with less cash are not placed at a disadvantage in third-level education.

Edit: I also apologize for this uncharacteristically personal post. But I just couldn't figure a better way to describe what it is like, otherwise.

---

* You probably also don't live in an area with >10% unemployment and with a deficient supply of service sector jobs - I commuted 3 hours each way for my first job, which happened to be the single interview I got back out of well over one hundred applications. (It was also a two hour commute from my institution, so I had to abandon it at the end of that Summer, when I was offered part-time - I had to initially lie and tell them I was dropping out of college to get the job).

** Which means that you won't have to wander aimlessly around the library for 30 minutes until someone relocates their laptop to one of the desks that don't have a PC. It also means you will be able to go out and get lunch during exam season - or not have to rise at 5.30 in the morning so you can secure a seat to begin with. In fact, you'll probably still make use of your school's library after first year, I would imagine.

*** Mind you, my income isn't even that low (~30,000 - 35,000 after taxes and transfers, 3 siblings) and, in fact, I think I am quite gifted compared to some of the kids I grew up (incomes < 20,000). I had lots of support throughout primary and secondary school because my parents made sacrifices. I grew up with kids though, kids from council estates [our version of the projects], kids like my cousins, and I am very grateful. To put those in perspective, imagine less than minimal support - imagine a culture that doesn't value learning; imagine the sort of mindset that would train you into.


You could - y'know - maintain a constant level of difficulty so that your degree still acts as a relevant signal of your ability. That, and only allow a certain amount of students in, dependent on their grades; and, we all recognize that some institutions are better or worse than others. My class has had a failure and dropout rate that is greater than 60% so far. I'm a senior in college - last year, only 26% of the initial class ended up graduating. Look at countries like Germany and like Sweden and like France, free education and you don't see that their degrees are completely devalued, because they still signal ability.

You are acting as if once you pay your fees that you will just be handed a degree. This might be true in the United States - I understand you have serious issues with grade inflation - but, if that was the case, then you are literally arguing that we should aim to be stopping the poor kids from getting degrees; since they can't afford to pay.


Economics PhD programs don't charge tuition and typically pay a generous stipend to their students; 30,000 usually - though I have seen up to 50,000 (Zurich). This has not resulted in a complete devaluation of economics PhDs - most programs usually have a failure rate approach 40% in the first year.

This is because you are not purchasing a degree; there is work involved once you enter, a competent education system should be relying on people to do the work - and not just be able to pay.


My parents most certainly cannot afford to pay for my education, not that I should have to explain it to you, but here are just SOME of the reasons why:

1) My father was wrongfully terminated from a job he had close to 10 years making a very good sum of money as the #2 manager of the entire agency because a new boss came in and wanted him to do illegal shit, which he refused to do as his job deals with wastewater which would fuck the environment up. So, he was fired for "not following orders" given by the #1 asshole. And, since we had just bought a new house and truck, guess what? My parents were forced to file bankruptcy to avoid foreclosure. That was 2009, and it was just lifted in the middle of last year. Yeah, my dad finally got the job he has now and started his side business and getting back close to what he was making before, but the point is, we went through a period of him not working. And since my mother can't work due to medical issues, most of our savings were depleted in order to get by. So that's strike #1.
2) My parents have zero credit history. They pay cash for everything they can. They got their first credit card July last year, because they went to buy a truck and couldn't get a decent interest rate because of having zero credit. So, any student loans they WOULD cosign would come at over 15% interest, which is insane.
3) Also, due to the aforementioned bankruptcy, interest rates go up on ANY loan. So, now, its closer to 20% interest on whatever student loans they MIGHT cosign.
4) If they WERE to cosign my loans, they'd never be able to finance anything they might want to buy for themselves because anywhere they'd go would see that there's the potential they might owe $75,000 in student debt if I couldn't pay it.

My parents can't afford my college. At all. I DO have to worry about the college hounding me for money, I have to worry how I'm going to obtain enough to go. That's why I've done dual enrollment through high school - I've knocked my first year out already. Saved a lot of money in that.

As for working, it took me 3.5 months to get my first job, which I've kept for 2 years now. Everywhere else I applied rejected me because I had certain requirements for hours with my being in school. And working through school is a definite for me, as much as I'd like to solely focus on my education. I've already talked about transferring to a store in the company down a mile from the campus when I go this fall, and working my normal store in summer.

And yeah, I do have a laptop. I bought it myself. I saved a lot of money to buy a good one. My parents didn't buy it for me. My parents gave me my first truck, and that's it. The truck I have now was a gift from my aforementioned uncle. Hell, the only things my parents are paying for through my college is for my phone and health insurance, on the condition that all copays for appointments come out of my pocket. Just for this semester, I've spent $300 on textbooks.

In regard to the costs and purpose of education, perhaps it is different where you are from, but the US values money above all else. The more you pay for your education, the more valuable you are. Our entire society is driven by monetary gain. That's why it would be impossible to create a free college system in this country. Our entire job market, the determination of salaries, even job eligibility, is based on what education you have. This creates a society where, to succeed in a majority of professions outside of manual labor or low-level retail work, you HAVE to have a degree, and the more money you paid to get the degree, the better pay and options you get in the market. That doesn't mean, however, that simply "paying for a degree" is the end all - you have to earn it, work for it, at least at any respectable school. You only "pay for a degree" at a party school.

As for the poor kids, many have a better chance of getting the money to have the shot at a degree than I do. They qualify for all those special income-based programs that pay them out the ass because they're not middle class. I'm fucked by the system, I won't get money from the government to go to school. I'm not saying the poor kids can't obtain an education, that they should be banned from it, not at all. I'm saying that at least in America, the cost of college is determinant of so much else that to take it away for the sake of "more access" would be detrimental to the entire country's social structure and economic balance.

brandon9
January 6th, 2017, 09:10 AM
Regarding the OP first post, I would say I don't see why one's Christian values have to interfere in political, social and economic decisions. I can be against gay marriage or against abortion, like you mentioned, but the reasons for me to be against those things might be totally independent from my religion

This is so accurate ^^

Religion and politics by nature should be kept separate. Religion should not influence political affairs. As I've stated before here, I am not religious, my beliefs are of my own free opinions and values and are not based on adhering to a religious doctrine. These are just two things that were never meant to mix, as it leads to more problems than it does solutions.

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 6th, 2017, 09:19 AM
My point still stands that you lack knowledge of the different strands of Christianity. I never said that you didn't know your own beliefs.
What I was saying, and you keep avoiding, is that there are two intrepretations of Christian salvation that doctrinally have some support. Your belief that salvation is entirely by being a good person is not supported by any significant denomination, arguably misses the whole point of Christianity, and the vast vast majority of American Christians voters do not share that view.

But I would like to say for one last time, that I see absolutely nothing wrong for a Christian to support certain economic viewpoints. I don't consider religion when dealing with my view on economics, I just look for what I think is better for everyone all around, which doesn't involve a welfare state.

Vlerchan
January 6th, 2017, 09:22 AM
brandon9: Yes. Fair enough. And I can symphatise with your position - especially since I know someone in a similar one.

I think the point we can both take from this is that thinking we have an understanding about a certain class of people based on their income is wrong. I don't think your blanket delegitimisation of the disadvantages that poor people face is justified at all - and any opinion I had of your should certainly be revised, in turn. (Mind you, if we are quite honest with ourselves, I don't think your situation is usual for people in your parent's tax bracket - least from what I have gathered from personal experience with friends; which is the reason I jumped on you like that.) I think there is also a point worth making that, whilst poor people might have an advantage given the current scholarship system, if that system did not exist, one would expect you to have an appreciable advantage (which is the reason I find your criticism somewhat misguided, still).

But, actually, I apoligize. I should have stuck to strictly impersonal. Though, my blunder probably better made my point than might have been the case otherwise.

The more you pay for your education, the more valuable you are.
Basic market logic predicts that the more valuable an education is, the more people will be willing to pay with it. I think you have the causality wrong.

Our entire job market, the determination of salaries, even job eligibility, is based on what education you have.
There is no reason that should change if the education was free. It is the same in Ireland. It just so happens that places in the top tier colleges are purely allocated to people on the basis of their grades.

and the more money you paid to get the degree
Replace 'the more money you paid' with 'the higher entrance grades you got' and you understand the Irish system. There is no reason that what you have couldn't be replaced with what we have. Mind you, I think what we have is suboptimal, and you are better off paying for college, when the loan system is solid.

mattsmith48
January 6th, 2017, 08:27 PM
Let me pose it to you this way. My uncle is a multimillionaire. He made his money over the course of decades, after coming here from South Africa, by creating his own business which has dealings across the world. Honest work, honest effort, just as much so as someone who lays brick or hangs drywall or scrubs the floors at a school. Why should he be forced to pay an astronomical amount of taxes on wealth he worked his entire life to accumulate, simply for the fact that he's got it in the first place? Why should he give that hard earned money of his to someone else, someone he has no connection to, if he does not want to? Why can't that money be allotted to his family instead of your "less fortunate?" He's disgusted at the amount he pays in taxes, and rightly so. Increasing taxes based solely on the fact that the rich are rich is essentially penalizing them for being rich. It's bullshit.

Like CanadienHockeyGuy said you live in a country where rich people live pay little amount of taxes compared to the rest of the world, your uncle as nothing to complain about. He has to pay more taxes because he makes more money, if he was paying less in taxes he most likely wouldn't even use that extra money anyway.

Dude, she isn't a conservative, that's what it has to do with it. In no way, shape, or form is Hillary Clinton a conservative politician. You are just simply wrong in this, there's no way to spin it where she comes off as conservative to anyone who is a true conservative themself. Perhaps, to extreme leftists, she is "conservative" in that she doesn't embrace all their ideals, but make no mistake, she's not conservative from a conservative standpoint.

Look at how she voted in the past, look at her policies, she has moved little more to the left on some issues during the campaing because of Bernie supporters forced her, but she most likely have changed her mind to her previous, more conservative position, after becoming president.

He is not a living, breathing, voting citizen of any country. Jesus has nothing to do with politics.

Tell that to the Republican party.


To build into your statement above and to lead into my next argument, let's talk about gay people. From an average conservative standpoint, homosexuals aren't BAD people, and many conservatives that I know personally are acceptive of them provided the homosexual individuals don't push their beliefs at them. Support for gay marriage is a mixed bag, the super-religious are totally against it as the word of the Bible says marriage is a covenant between man and woman.

And the Bible also said that if a woman is not a virgin when she gets married she must be stoned to death.

But, a vast majority of gay people DO push their beliefs into the face of those who do not agree with it, and then become affronted when something is said, 90% of the time in a polite way asking them to drop the topic, agree to disagree, or not express their beliefs physically in front of others as a courtesy.

Any example of that?


I'm complaining because it is a valid complaint. Like I said, my dad alone makes $100k a year, and my parents can't afford to pay for my education any more so than Joe who's combined family income is $30k a year. Sorry but it's true. Let me point out something that I've discovered recently about education: it's bullshit.

So your parents make 100k a year each and they can afford to pay for your education, but a single parent working 25 hours a week at $10 an hour can pay for everything they and their kids need?


And you're absolutely correct when you say the idea of free education is crazy. It's fucking insane.

The crazy part was kinda sarcastic, just so you know.

A college education, be it whatevee degree you decide to pursue, is meant to show that you worked hard, you have a specific knowledge and skill set, you were willing to pay for your advancement in society. The value attached to a college education affects everything from the biggest to the smallest part of the job market. If you devalue the education and make it all free, you're going to fuck the system. You're going to fuck social classes. A doctorate would mean no more than a high school diploma. At that point, it would be education for pursing personal interests, not for securing a job in the world and contributing to society. I'm all for cutting some costs to students

How would it devalue the education? What about all those kids who their parents pay for their education or the ones for who its free because their parents are too poor, their education is as the same value then the one someone have to pay for.

but making college education free and universally accessible is one of the worst ideas in the long, sad history of bad ideas.

Actually resurrecting dinosaurs is the worst idea

People still go bankrupt on Obamacare because of medical bills. Nobody, and I do mean not a single person, that I know is on Obamacare actually likes Obamacare. It is quite possibly the worst fuck-up in policy since No Child Left Behind was enacted.

I already said how it can be fixed, single payer, most countries on earth figure it out already.

Exactly how expensive do you think food is?

TOO FUCKING MUCH!


It's symbolic of national pride, that you care enough about the future of your country to exercise your constitutional right to vote. And I'm sorry, I don't think Trump voters would have behaved the way Hillary voters did if the election had been flipped. You wouldn't see meetings about secession, riots and mass protests in the streets. The infantile voters are people like that who have no clue how the political system works.

If Trump had won the election but Clinton was president because she got more votes in states that are worth more it would have been 10 times worst.

Uniquemind
January 7th, 2017, 04:15 AM
People are hypocritical and lack the ability to take perspective without fallacies.

The common tend I see in a nutshell is this:

Successful people: I did it, so therefore others can to. (Technically a logical fallacy to base a belief system on, albiet non-religious belief system, it still is one).


Unsuccessful unfortunate poor, creeping poor formerly middle class: why does the system rigged against them.


Both have good and bad arguments too them, but a small minority poor I feel gain the system usually because they already crossed a societal criminal behavior conduct line, so they are forced to beg because no, they're logistically aren't enough low-skill job bosses who will take someone with any criminal background.

So with certain broad facts acknowledged everything makes sense.

Professional Russian
January 7th, 2017, 07:46 AM
If you make more money you should pay more taxes that money then use that money for people who need


Im in the same situation than you my parents make to much money so I would have to pay, which is the reason Im working instead of going to university. Instead of sitting around complaining about less fortunate people getting their university paid by the government because their parents can't pay for it, Im fighting for that crazy idea that education should be free for everyone
]

im gonna bitch on these 2 points cause I can. the first point: there isnt one God damn reason my hard earned dollars should go to some bitch with 8 kids milking wellfare. my tax dollars also shouldn't go to druggies and people who are to lazy to work. you're idea of giving tout the less fortunate is wellfare and its an abused system. it had good intentions but failed horribly. should repeal it for all im concerned. for the second point college shouldn't be free. schools are a business. a very expensive one at that. I'm paying about $30,000-$40,000 a semester to go to college. I'm buried in student loan debt but I wouldn't want it free...because oh my God im majoring in something useful, welding aND fabrication engineering, I'll actually make good money with my degree. I'll be able to pay my debts off and still have money left over. the problem with people who want free college is they're going for some useless liberal arts degree. not something useful that the world actually needs.

brandon9
January 7th, 2017, 10:36 AM
brandon9: Yes. Fair enough. And I can symphatise with your position - especially since I know someone in a similar one.

I think the point we can both take from this is that thinking we have an understanding about a certain class of people based on their income is wrong. I don't think your blanket delegitimisation of the disadvantages that poor people face is justified at all - and any opinion I had of your should certainly be revised, in turn. (Mind you, if we are quite honest with ourselves, I don't think your situation is usual for people in your parent's tax bracket - least from what I have gathered from personal experience with friends; which is the reason I jumped on you like that.) I think there is also a point worth making that, whilst poor people might have an advantage given the current scholarship system, if that system did not exist, one would expect you to have an appreciable advantage (which is the reason I find your criticism somewhat misguided, still).

I do realize there are legitimately poor people who have few options to better their lives, but there are also many who claim to be "poor" and either did it to themselves or have every available opportunity to escape the poverty they claim to be in. It's for that reason - abuse of the system - that I despise welfare, because it's just a broken system. As professionalRussian said, the system failed horribly, at least here in America. But I also personally just don't belive it is the duty of the government to provide welfare assistance to people - that should be left with charities and other foundations who work in accordance with specified standards (standards for which obtaining welfare should be seriously tightened I might add). Nor should it be the obligation of everyone who does have money, who works for their living, to pay to keep the abused system afloat, giving money to people who could make it themselves.

And no, I know my situation isn't normal for someone of my income level. I know of one other person whose parents actually make more than my family does that won't receive assistance to go to school. But, it happens, and for someone like me who NEEDS college to enter into the field I want to go into (criminal justice), and worked my ass off for years to be top 5% in my class, the thought that I might not be able to go because of a lack of funds while some fuckoff who hasn't worked half as hard could go essentially free of charge becuase he gets every scholarship and grant in the world, is just downright sickening. Scholarships should be awarded to the most merited applicants, those who display true understanding, skill, and academic work ethic. You shouldn't have pages upon pages of scholarships that award only to income groups below $50,000 or to minorities only.

But, actually, I apoligize. I should have stuck to strictly impersonal. Though, my blunder probably better made my point than might have been the case otherwise.

Its totally fine, I understand why you said what you did, this is a debate after all lol. You're a respectful and informed person whose presence in this thread is actually relevant, unlike some. I blew up on you a bit too, for which I apologize as well. I think we may both agree it's sometimes quite difficult to stay totally levelheaded when arguing conflicting points of view.

Basic market logic predicts that the more valuable an education is, the more people will be willing to pay with it. I think you have the causality wrong.

I think a lot of that depends upon career choice, at least in America. That, and definitely which college it is you're attending. If someone from Harvard and someone from the University of Virginia applied for a job, 9 times out of 10 the guy from Harvard would get it, because he's seen to have gone to a more prestigious school which cost more money, thus increasing his value. Again, that's a strictly American perspective though, could drastically differ across other nations.

There is no reason that should change if the education was free. It is the same in Ireland. It just so happens that places in the top tier colleges are purely allocated to people on the basis of their grades.

Replace 'the more money you paid' with 'the higher entrance grades you got' and you understand the Irish system. There is no reason that what you have couldn't be replaced with what we have. Mind you, I think what we have is suboptimal, and you are better off paying for college, when the loan system is solid.

My question regarding this is, how long exactly has the Irish system been this way? I admit I'm not well versed in Irish educational practices. If it has been this way for many decades, or even since the inception of the system, that's one thing. But if it is a more recent establishment, or has replaced a former system in which college cost money, there must surely have been a very rough transition period as the entire job market adjusted to the shift in policy?

Vlerchan
January 7th, 2017, 11:41 AM
I think we may both agree it's sometimes quite difficult to stay totally levelheaded when arguing conflicting points of view.
Normally I'm fine. But at the moment I'm racing to get my tax returns to be so I can pay my fees - or I can't sit exams, so yeah.

I think a lot of that depends upon career choice, at least in America.
This is part of it too. Though, in the end I feel it comes down to basic supply and demand.

If someone from Harvard and someone from the University of Virginia applied for a job, 9 times out of 10 the guy from Harvard would get it, because he's seen to have gone to a more prestigious school which cost more money, thus increasing his value.
In Ireland if someone from Trinity College Dublin and Carlow Institute of Technology applied for the same job, 9 times out of 10 the guy from Trinity would get it, because he's seen to have gone to a more prestigious school. But not because Trinity is more expensive, but because it has a better history, better faculty, nd stronger curricula.

The same is also true in the case of Harvard. Sure, it costs more, but the cost is set relative to the demand for it; and the demand was initially higher because it had stronger fundamentals. With regards to Economics - the subject I know best - its faculty are going to consistently publish in better journals than Virginia's, and if you pull up a course like Calc III, Harvard's is probably thought with greater sophistication.

My question regarding this is, how long exactly has the Irish system been this way?
Over twenty years. Though, in 2010 or so the government introduced a tax - ~ 3000 - on attending college.

[...] there must surely have been a very rough transition period as the entire job market adjusted to the shift in policy?
What happened is more-or-less the equivalent of what would occurs under the voucher system that Republican's propose for primary and secondary education. There was no shift in the job market as the trends in applications for certain courses continued regardless; where the courses have a finite number of places, and the points (GPA) is set by supply and demand (as more students, with higher GPAs make applications, the GPA required rises), markets clear perfectly and that's what happens under conditions where individuals pay with cash and individuals pay with a government voucher.

I will add, I don't believe our system is optimal; but, there is nothing inherently disruptive about a transition to such a voucher system.

brandon9
January 7th, 2017, 11:55 AM
Like CanadienHockeyGuy said you live in a country where rich people live pay little amount of taxes compared to the rest of the world, your uncle as nothing to complain about. He has to pay more taxes because he makes more money, if he was paying less in taxes he most likely wouldn't even use that extra money anyway.

CanadienHockeyGuy is apparently just as misinformed as you are. My uncle would most certainly invest the money he is pissing away in taxes into his business, or put it toward his childrens' education. As someone who works for a living being forced to pay more taxes than others, he has a fair bit to complain about.

Look at how she voted in the past, look at her policies, she has moved little more to the left on some issues during the campaing because of Bernie supporters forced her, but she most likely have changed her mind to her previous, more conservative position, after becoming president.

Dude, if Bernie Sanders wasn't in this race as a Democrat, everyone would be saying what a progessive leftist candidate Clinton was. When compared to Sanders, and this hits back to my other post, I'm sure any democrat would consider her a conservative. But to a true conservative, she's not fucking conservative.


Tell that to the Republican party.

I'm a fucking Republican. Or was that not clear?

And the Bible also said that if a woman is not a virgin when she gets married she must be stoned to death.

Again, this is a record of early human history. In the cultures of this time (circa 3000 yesrs ago), the sexual purity of women was of paramount importance, and for a woman to lie about being a virgin was the equivalent of a capital offense. You cannot judge that which was commonplace in the time against modern conventions. No Christian today is going to stone a girl for having sex before marriage. This is a very stupid argument to even be having lol.

Any example of that?

Several from my own experience. I've been totally blown up on for asking a guy to not fucking make out with his boyfriend in the line in front of me at the store. I've been blown up on for asking a guy to not talk to me about the gay rights movement. I've been blown up on for refusing to take a pamphlet promoting the "Day of Silence" by my school's LGBT club (a club which shouldn't exist any more so than religious clubs like FCA in a public school setting). I could list more examples. I've been called every homophobic term in the book, and the funny thing is, I don't give two shits if you're gay as long as it isn't pushed in my face. I just don't agree with it and don't like it all that much for personal reasons that have nothing to do with religion or politics or anything of the sort. But I have been attacked and slandered for politely saying "Hey, can you not do that in front of me?" Or "I don't want to talk about this with you."

So your parents make 100k a year each and they can afford to pay for your education, but a single parent working 25 hours a week at $10 an hour can pay for everything they and their kids need?

No, once again your ignorance betrays you. If you actually read my post to Vlerchan you would see that I clearly explained my family's financial situation. My mother doesn't even fucking work, she can't. Nor, for what has to be the 10th time, can my parents pay for my education, which was also explained in that post. Read, dude. Read.

Did I say single parent? Nope. Again I direct you to read:
Assuming in a traditional nuclear family household of husband and wife making similar salaries, it is entirely possible to feed everyone, pay rent, pay bills, on that kind of salary. I know people that do it. People I have worked with for 2 years now do it all the time. It's pretty common.
Now, where in there is the term "single parent?" I don't see it, and I should know, because I wrote it.

The crazy part was kinda sarcastic, just so you know.

You may have meant it that way, but it's highly accurate.

How would it devalue the education? What about all those kids who their parents pay for their education or the ones for who its free because their parents are too poor, their education is as the same value then the one someone have to pay for.

I've explained in several separate posts how it would devalue education. Third time I'll tell you to go and read my posts before coming back to debate me.

The point of secondary education isn't that it should be free. Nobody, unless you are a fucking mathematical scientific genius who can singlehandedly change the fucking world, should be allowed to go to college for free - and those people, the Hawkings and Steve Jobs's of the world, they get free rides from the schools themselves, and they're directly working toward the betterment of society. Education is based on price; for what quality of education are you willing to pay? And in turn, the job market is based on that as well.

Actually resurrecting dinosaurs is the worst idea

Well, at least you understand pop culture references and have a decent taste in film.

I already said how it can be fixed, single payer, most countries on earth figure it out already.

It's funny to me that you rally so much for single payer healthcare AND Hillary Clinton, yet Clinton herself has been back-and-forth on the issue.

TOO FUCKING MUCH!

You aren't going to win this with me. I've worked at a grocery store for two years, I'm trained to work all major departments in the store, and I'm the assistant produce manager. I order grocery trucks. I see the sales and profit margins, I price the fucking shit myself sometimes. I know exactly what food costs. I could create you a shopping list where you get quality food - enough for 4 people - for about $50 when you factor in sale items, coupon/incentives, etc.


If Trump had won the election but Clinton was president because she got more votes in states that are worth more it would have been 10 times worst.

I'm not quite sure why this matters so much to you seeing how you are Canadian. But, I'll point out that the democratic state of California carries the US in every Democratic decision made. If California didn't exist, or if California was a red state, Democrats wouldn't get shit done. Most of this country is red. This last election proved it - look at the state maps, look county by county. Democrats carry the cities, that's it in 90% of cases. Like Virginia, my state. 90% of the state voted Republican this election, and its only the cities in northern Virginia that made the state go blue.

brandon9
January 7th, 2017, 12:08 PM
Normally I'm fine. But at the moment I'm racing to get my tax returns to be so I can pay my fees - or I can't sit exams, so yeah.

Exams are a bitch. I've got one in May that costs $93 to even sit for, with no guarantee of passing.

This is part of it too. Though, in the end I feel it comes down to basic supply and demand.

I see your point, you have a logical flow of ideas there. Of course it all differs across different parts of the world, other factors come into play.

In Ireland if someone from Trinity College Dublin and Carlow Institute of Technology applied for the same job, 9 times out of 10 the guy from Trinity would get it, because he's seen to have gone to a more prestigious school. But not because Trinity is more expensive, but because it has a better history, better faculty, nd stronger curricula.

The same is also true in the case of Harvard. Sure, it costs more, but the cost is set relative to the demand for it; and the demand was initially higher because it had stronger fundamentals. With regards to Economics - the subject I know best - its faculty are going to consistently publish in better journals than Virginia's, and if you pull up a course like Calc III, Harvard's is probably thought with greater sophistication.

I assumed you'd come up with an example similar to mine from your own county, I'm happy to say you did lol. The only difference between America and Ireland in this is that more value here is placed on the cost versus the quality. It's assumed that competency comes from the fact you have the degree from such a prestigious school, rather than requiring full proof of the fact. It's the same way for any Ivy League school here.

Over twenty years. Though, in 2010 or so the government introduced a tax - ~ 3000 - on attending college.

What happened is more-or-less the equivalent of what would occurs under the voucher system that Republican's propose for primary and secondary education. There was no shift in the job market as the trends in applications for certain courses continued regardless; where the courses have a finite number of places, and the points (GPA) is set by supply and demand (as more students, with higher GPAs make applications, the GPA required rises), markets clear perfectly and that's what happens under conditions where individuals pay with cash and individuals pay with a government voucher.

Perhaps Ireland has a more stable implementation program than what the US could come up with - our politicians leave much to be desired, sadly. I can't help but feel that implementing such a change here would cause an inevitable clusterfuck.

I will add, I don't believe our system is optimal; but, there is nothing inherently disruptive about a transition to such a voucher system.

You had said your idea of optimal was associating cost with the education provided loan systems were stable, yes? Explain that idea out a bit more if you could.

Vlerchan
January 7th, 2017, 12:57 PM
I've got one in May that costs $93 to even sit for, with no guarantee of passing.
The one I have to sit to make applications for foreign MSc's are coming in at a sweet 250euro - with no guarantee of coming inside the top 20%, which is what these people demand.

The only difference between America and Ireland in this is that more value here is placed on the cost versus the quality. It's assumed that competency comes from the fact you have the degree from such a prestigious school, rather than requiring full proof of the fact. It's the same way for any Ivy League school here.
The issue in the logic here is that you initially cite price as the basis of value and then proceed to use refer to the prestige, as if the pair are synonymous. It is probably the case that prestige is being priced-into the college's tuition fees. In other words, demand is responsive to perceived prestige and the price of the degree (college's tuition fees) increases as a result of that.

I'll try find concreteness in an example. Imagine a market for sports clothes when you can purchase from either Nike or Target. Presume quality is fixed - in other words, imagine that the clothes are stitched using the same materials, in the same plant, by the same 10 year old Vietnamese girl (they probably are in reality). The only difference is the branding. Nike can extract more money for its clothing because of the prestige associated with it; it is not the case that Nike extracting more money prompts greater prestige to be associated with it .

In this market for sports clothes, price is a function of quality and branding [prestige]; not that prestige is a function of price.

It might also be easier to consider it as such. If Harvard increased the price of its tuition by 50%, would employers demand more Harvard graduates? In a market where price engendered prestige there would be an incentive for Harvard to dramatically increase prices - as the value of the degree rises in tandem 1:1 - but that hasn't happened. Least not as radically as such a model would predict, though I appreciate that tuition fees are rising in recent times (reasons for such can be allocated).

our politicians leave much to be desired, sadly.
I can literally count the number of competent Irish politicians on one hand; our electoral system creates incentives for politics to be dominated by local-interest groups.

Exhibit A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGgsaUeuqgg).

I can't help but feel that implementing such a change here would cause an inevitable clusterfuck.
It's fine to be worried about the implementation of large political projects - in fact, that's probably the best attitude to have about them. But from economic first principals, there is no reason to expect disruption to application trends, job markets, and so on.

You had said your idea of optimal was associating cost with the education provided loan systems were stable, yes? Explain that idea out a bit more if you could.
The government establishes a private ltd student loan provisions company who lends to students, accepted into accredited universities, at market rates but doesn't begin to require that students repay such loans until the point at which they are earning over a certain amount of income, over the course of a much longer period that current (at the moment, the government owns an increasingly huge amount of student debt without imposing the latter conditions).

The most important part is that it places the debt burden on the student; no more co-signing or involving parents in their children's debts, which creates a rack of issues in and of itself (as you outlined above). But it's also re-distributive, we have lots of evidence that the year you graduate in can have a substantial impact on lifetime earnings, thus it creates a sort of graduation-insurance.

It's worked quite well in a number of countries: Australia, Chile, New Zealand, Thailand, and the United Kingdom, being the usual examples. Though, there are specific issues in the American system that might make it inappropriate: the absolute size of American college debt is large enough, as a proportion of all government-held assets, that it would create a quite large incentive for government to not make any efforts to fix high tuition costs in the first place. And, the bigger issue here is spiraling tuition costs.

NewLeafsFan
January 7th, 2017, 03:36 PM
He's a Christian, has been his whole life. Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things, because I'm sure someone will come along and quote this saying he's a bigoted, entitled immigrant who's too greedy to "give to the poor." He left South Africa to have a chance at a worthwhile life, a goal he achieved 400 times over in my opinion. And religious as he is, he still doesn't feel the compulsion to "give to the poor." He was dirt poor and he made millions by working for it. Proof that anyone can, instead of milking the system for welfare and demanding the rich pay more in taxes in order to support their asses. And, as I recall, I'm not the one who brought up taxes originally, so don't bust my balls over that line of discussion - you were the one who first mentioned taxes in this thread, and I quote:

Your inclusion of the above attack on the right perfectly well gives me the freedom to discuss taxes in this thread. You mentioned it in your opening post, I mean seriously?

I don't care if he's Christian or not. Youre still missing the point. People that are a lot more religious than the average are prolife and left wing economics.

I only mentioned taxes because that in a way is a form of charity. You started rambling about how businedd people, that apparently work harder and are more deserving of tax breaks. (This is not an invitation for stories about hard working business family members and friends.) If you do I will respond with stories of people without food. Many if them living in south africa. Too bad ur uncle wouldnt support 399 other Africans in need.

mattsmith48
January 7th, 2017, 03:48 PM
CanadienHockeyGuy is apparently just as misinformed as you are. My uncle would most certainly invest the money he is pissing away in taxes into his business, or put it toward his childrens' education. As someone who works for a living being forced to pay more taxes than others, he has a fair bit to complain about.

Well he couldn't put that money towards his childrens' education because like you said it would devalue their education because they don't work to pay for it themself. Why makes you think he would spend that extra money in his business? Majority of rich people don't do it when they get massive tax cuts.

Dude, if Bernie Sanders wasn't in this race as a Democrat, everyone would be saying what a progessive leftist candidate Clinton was. When compared to Sanders, and this hits back to my other post, I'm sure any democrat would consider her a conservative. But to a true conservative, she's not fucking conservative.

Bernie being in the race didn't make her position and policies less progressive because they weren't progressive before Bernie got in the race.


I'm a fucking Republican. Or was that not clear?

Tell your own party then, because they don't seem to know that Jesus as nothing to do with politics.

Several from my own experience. I've been totally blown up on for asking a guy to not fucking make out with his boyfriend in the line in front of me at the store.

Whats wrong with that as long they don't start fucking in the middle of the store who gives a shit?

I've been blown up on for asking a guy to not talk to me about the gay rights movement.

Why was he talking to you about that.


I've been blown up on for refusing to take a pamphlet promoting the "Day of Silence" by my school's LGBT club (a club which shouldn't exist any more so than religious clubs like FCA in a public school setting).

Your right religious clubs shouldn't be allowed anywhere near schools especially Catholics. I don't see anything wrong with a LGBT club at a school.


No, once again your ignorance betrays you. If you actually read my post to Vlerchan you would see that I clearly explained my family's financial situation. My mother doesn't even fucking work, she can't. Nor, for what has to be the 10th time, can my parents pay for my education, which was also explained in that post. Read, dude. Read.

Did I say single parent? Nope. Again I direct you to read:

Now, where in there is the term "single parent?" I don't see it, and I should know, because I wrote it.


Your dad is still making 100k a year thats double the average income per household in the US. With the numbers you said earlier $10 an hour for 25 hours a week, its 13k a year, even with 2 parents it comes to 26k. If your parents have trouble with 100k a year how are two parents suppose to support 2 kids and themself with 26k?


It's funny to me that you rally so much for single payer healthcare AND Hillary Clinton, yet Clinton herself has been back-and-forth on the issue.

Why is it funny? And when was Clinton for single payer?

I'm not quite sure why this matters so much to you seeing how you are Canadian.

Well the economy here is going to shit because of 10 years of a conservative government having the economy rely on oil and Trump's foreign policies will only make it worst. Plus the starting a war on the eviroment and being a tweet away from a nuclear war.

But, I'll point out that the democratic state of California carries the US in every Democratic decision made. If California didn't exist, or if California was a red state, Democrats wouldn't get shit done. Most of this country is red. This last election proved it - look at the state maps, look county by county. Democrats carry the cities, that's it in 90% of cases. Like Virginia, my state. 90% of the state voted Republican this election, and its only the cities in northern Virginia that made the state go blue.

Im not really understanding the point your trying to make here?

NewLeafsFan
January 8th, 2017, 04:34 AM
Well he couldn't put that money towards his childrens' education because like you said it would devalue their education because they don't work to pay for it themself. Why makes you think he would spend that extra money in his business? Majority of rich people don't do it when they get massive tax cuts.



Bernie being in the race didn't make her position and policies less progressive because they weren't progressive before Bernie got in the race.




Tell your own party then, because they don't seem to know that Jesus as nothing to do with politics.



Whats wrong with that as long they don't start fucking in the middle of the store who gives a shit?



Why was he talking to you about that.




Your right religious clubs shouldn't be allowed anywhere near schools especially Catholics. I don't see anything wrong with a LGBT club at a school.




Your dad is still making 100k a year thats double the average income per household in the US. With the numbers you said earlier $10 an hour for 25 hours a week, its 13k a year, even with 2 parents it comes to 26k. If your parents have trouble with 100k a year how are two parents suppose to support 2 kids and themself with 26k?




Why is it funny? And when was Clinton for single payer?



Well the economy here is going to shit because of 10 years of a conservative government having the economy rely on oil and Trump's foreign policies will only make it worst. Plus the starting a war on the eviroment and being a tweet away from a nuclear war.



Im not really understanding the point your trying to make here?

If you think that paying taxes is pissing away money than you dont even know what taxes are. If you think that paying for your military, government workers, social assistance, ect us pissing away money than think about what your country would be like without you pissing away all this money.

im gonna bitch on these 2 points cause I can. the first point: there isnt one God damn reason my hard earned dollars should go to some bitch with 8 kids milking wellfare. my tax dollars also shouldn't go to druggies and people who are to lazy to work. you're idea of giving tout the less fortunate is wellfare and its an abused system. it had good intentions but failed horribly. should repeal it for all im concerned. for the second point college shouldn't be free. schools are a business. a very expensive one at that. I'm paying about $30,000-$40,000 a semester to go to college. I'm buried in student loan debt but I wouldn't want it free...because oh my God im majoring in something useful, welding aND fabrication engineering, I'll actually make good money with my degree. I'll be able to pay my debts off and still have money left over. the problem with people who want free college is they're going for some useless liberal arts degree. not something useful that the world actually needs.

Well now its my turn to "bitch" about your points.

Firstly, not every social support system is welfare. And not every person on welfare is milking the system with 8 kids. Some people fall on hard times. Its not milking or stealing...its reality! Clearly thsts never happened to you or you might have an ounce of sympathy and compassion in you.

Secondly, post secondary education should be free or as cheap as possible. Educated people are more likely to have successful careers and less likely to require the governments "milk". Studies also show that education is the best solution to racism and other forms if descrimination. Thats more important than business/ money. If you want low taxes pay for education instead of welfare.

Thirdly, do you remember what this post is about? If you want to bitch about taxes there is a recently started thread where it is appropriate to do so. If your response is just more complains about the givernments miney, dont expect a response.

Professional Russian
January 8th, 2017, 09:33 AM
Well now its my turn to "bitch" about your points.

Firstly, not every social support system is welfare. And not every person on welfare is milking the system with 8 kids. Some people fall on hard times. Its not milking or stealing...its reality! Clearly thsts never happened to you or you might have an ounce of sympathy and compassion in you.

Secondly, post secondary education should be free or as cheap as possible. Educated people are more likely to have successful careers and less likely to require the governments "milk". Studies also show that education is the best solution to racism and other forms if descrimination. Thats more important than business/ money. If you want low taxes pay for education instead of welfare.

Thirdly, do you remember what this post is about? If you want to bitch about taxes there is a recently started thread where it is appropriate to do so. If your response is just more complains about the givernments miney, dont expect a response.

the biggest social support system is welfare which is abused horribly. and no i never had to rely on it nor ever will. I have a very simple theory. if an 18 year old kid can make a dick ton of money doing DoD work and pipeline work then there isn't one single able bodied person who cant. i have no sympathy for people that fall oj hard times and go to welfare. there are many other ways to fix it other than relying on the government. also I don't think you're getting the free college thing. colleges are a business. they are there to make money. no more no less. and education is the best cure to racism? come live a day in my school. maybe your liberal arts degree will cure racism...trade schools will not I promise you that. also you can make a great living without an educations. unions are a great to make money. fucking great I have a buddy making more than any pipeliner right because he's in the ironworkers. life isn't about education it's about playing your cards right. if you play them right you'll be fine. if you wanna bitch and moan along the way you'll get fucked hard. thats a reality I promise. also noticed your from Canada, no i dont pay attention to often, but here's my advice to you, you don't live here. you dont know what's happening. the media isn't always right. there much bigger issues here than what you're pushing for.

brandon9
January 8th, 2017, 10:16 AM
The one I have to sit to make applications for foreign MSc's are coming in at a sweet 250euro - with no guarantee of coming inside the top 20%, which is what these people demand.

That's insane. I've bought textbooks for less, and an average book for the courses I'm taking is around $120 USD - something like 115euros if my math is right?

The issue in the logic here is that you initially cite price as the basis of value and then proceed to use refer to the prestige, as if the pair are synonymous. It is probably the case that prestige is being priced-into the college's tuition fees. In other words, demand is responsive to perceived prestige and the price of the degree (college's tuition fees) increases as a result of that.

That's the point I was trying to make, in effect. I didn't check my train of thought as I typed out, I suppose, which lead to the exact fallacy. Though, to me, if the prestige is affecting the price of the tuition, they are intwined in a way from the standpoint of the average employer here. That's kinda where I was attempting to go, you hashed the details out much better than I did.

I'll try find concreteness in an example. Imagine a market for sports clothes when you can purchase from either Nike or Target. Presume quality is fixed - in other words, imagine that the clothes are stitched using the same materials, in the same plant, by the same 10 year old Vietnamese girl (they probably are in reality). The only difference is the branding. Nike can extract more money for its clothing because of the prestige associated with it; it is not the case that Nike extracting more money prompts greater prestige to be associated with it .

In this market for sports clothes, price is a function of quality and branding [prestige]; not that prestige is a function of price.

It might also be easier to consider it as such. If Harvard increased the price of its tuition by 50%, would employers demand more Harvard graduates? In a market where price engendered prestige there would be an incentive for Harvard to dramatically increase prices - as the value of the degree rises in tandem 1:1 - but that hasn't happened. Least not as radically as such a model would predict, though I appreciate that tuition fees are rising in recent times (reasons for such can be allocated).

The thoroughness of your example impressed me; that's very well thought out.

I can literally count the number of competent Irish politicians on one hand; our electoral system creates incentives for politics to be dominated by local-interest groups.

Exhibit A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGgsaUeuqgg).


It's fine to be worried about the implementation of large political projects - in fact, that's probably the best attitude to have about them. But from economic first principals, there is no reason to expect disruption to application trends, job markets, and so on.

Politics in general are bullshit, it doesn't matter where you're from. Everything is corrupted or filled with incompetence and misinformation.

In regard to the US, we suck at implementing new large-scale projects. It always concerns me when one is considered, because a huge national headache invariably follows.

The government establishes a private ltd student loan provisions company who lends to students, accepted into accredited universities, at market rates but doesn't begin to require that students repay such loans until the point at which they are earning over a certain amount of income, over the course of a much longer period that current (at the moment, the government owns an increasingly huge amount of student debt without imposing the latter conditions).

The most important part is that it places the debt burden on the student; no more co-signing or involving parents in their children's debts, which creates a rack of issues in and of itself (as you outlined above). But it's also re-distributive, we have lots of evidence that the year you graduate in can have a substantial impact on lifetime earnings, thus it creates a sort of graduation-insurance.

It's worked quite well in a number of countries: Australia, Chile, New Zealand, Thailand, and the United Kingdom, being the usual examples. Though, there are specific issues in the American system that might make it inappropriate: the absolute size of American college debt is large enough, as a proportion of all government-held assets, that it would create a quite large incentive for government to not make any efforts to fix high tuition costs in the first place. And, the bigger issue here is spiraling tuition costs.

I would say the piece in there that would most improve the American system is the elimination of co-signing / placing debt squarely on the student. Obviously, that would drastically increase my chances of securing a loan to go get my education.

If I recall correctly - and I read this awhile ago so I'm sure this is probably not wholly accurate today - that the national balance of student debt in the US hsd exceeded $1 trillion, an astronomical figure. Someone in this thread said it, that education in the US is primarily a business, and that's a well-supported point I believe. So much money flows in and out of the college education system here, that as you said, there's no incentive for anyone to fix it for the students.

brandon9
January 8th, 2017, 11:59 AM
I don't care if he's Christian or not. Youre still missing the point. People that are a lot more religious than the average are prolife and left wing economics.

I only mentioned taxes because that in a way is a form of charity. You started rambling about how businedd people, that apparently work harder and are more deserving of tax breaks. (This is not an invitation for stories about hard working business family members and friends.) If you do I will respond with stories of people without food. Many if them living in south africa. Too bad ur uncle wouldnt support 399 other Africans in need.

So, you don't care if he's a Christian, but yet you said you did before, and I quote:
If your uncles not religious than he has nothing to do with this debate.
SO....if he's not religious, he has nothing to do with the debate, but when I say he's religious, you don't give a fuck?

Yeah, because your equally misinformed buddy keeps saying the rich should pay more taxes in order to support the "less fortunate." I never said they work harder, I advise you - much like I've had to advise the above mentioned, to actually read my posts. I said businesspeople work just as hard as someone from a laborious profession, and that you shouldn't be forced to pay a shitload of taxes simply because you're rich and someone else is not, that's bullshit.

And as for your last little shot there, it actually really pisses me off. It's not the job of the United States nor any other country to support the African continent. It is not our job to fuck around over in other countries, period, unless provoked by an act or acts of war. And it is certainly not the job of my uncle, who WAS poor as fuck in South Africa, nor of any other single individual, to "support 399 other Africans in need," as you so ridiculously and arrogantly say. You want to help them, fly your ass to fucking Africa and get going. I doubt you would if I handed you the fucking plane ticket myself.

If you think that paying taxes is pissing away money than you dont even know what taxes are. If you think that paying for your military, government workers, social assistance, ect us pissing away money than think about what your country would be like without you pissing away all this money.

1) you quoted the wrong person. That's me.

TAX
noun
1.
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2.
a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.

There's the definition of the word tax, you arrogant ass. Want to know what my taxes go to? 50% right off the bat is payroll taxes taken for Medicare (which I don't have) and Social Security (which will be obsolete by the time I'd be old enough to draw it). Then you get into paying for national defense, ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (which I'm not on), and imagine this, more healthcare tax. Then the other, less costly shit, like education. Now, of the main bits there, what am I paying for that I'm not partaking of? Social Security, Medicare, and assistance programs.

Tell me again I don't know what taxes are, dude. I fucking pay mine.

Firstly, not every social support system is welfare. And not every person on welfare is milking the system with 8 kids. Some people fall on hard times. Its not milking or stealing...its reality! Clearly thsts never happened to you or you might have an ounce of sympathy and compassion in you.

Seeing how it's quite obvious you seem to think anyone who doesn't agree with welfare programs was born with the silver spoon of entitlement entrenched firmly up their ass, I'm setting you straight on this shit too. Do NOT presume to know what life experiences people have and have not had. People deal with shit you would never even know about, and making such callous assumptions is wrong. I'm sure you hold the same opinion about me, that I've never experienced hard times, that my family is just made of money, right? As I stated in an earlier post I'm sure you probably never read, my family HAS gone through hard times, my dad was wrongfully terminated and we ended up bankrupt. Did we seek out welfare in that time? Nope. We made it work, and we came out without any help. Would I presume to assume things about your personal life experience because I've read a few posts of yours on a forum and magically know everything about you? Do these posts encapsulate your entire life? No, they don't. So don't presume to know about other people's lives either.

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 8th, 2017, 12:22 PM
I just happened to stumble across this while browsing the internet, entirely coincidental. Its remarkably telling of our discussion here, plus adds a bit of humor that this debate desperately needs.
http://cdn.liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/15826315_299289160467906_6568195943927505228_n-500x404.jpg
http://cdn.liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/11221416_10207404810423993_8401906858828643003_n.jpg

brandon9
January 8th, 2017, 12:33 PM
Well he couldn't put that money towards his childrens' education because like you said it would devalue their education because they don't work to pay for it themself. Why makes you think he would spend that extra money in his business? Majority of rich people don't do it when they get massive tax cuts.

No, again you lack understanding. The education is devalued when it is not paid for, not because parents can pay for their children. If the child can walk into the college for free and no cost is associated, then comes the devaluation. And here you go again with the hasty generalizations, not all rich people are the same dude. He's trying to grow his business every day, of course he would invest the money in it. He owns a multinational company.


Bernie being in the race didn't make her position and policies less progressive because they weren't progressive before Bernie got in the race.

They were progressive from the start, the point I'm making is her policies weren't as progressive as Bernie Sanders had made his to be. Compared to his position, Clinton could - by DEMOCRAT standards - be said to be more conservative, as conservative is the opposite of progressive. But, for the umpteenth time, she is NOT an actual conservative. Your lack of knowledge of American political parties and concepts is really quite apparent, as this is not the first or even second time I have explained this exact concept to you.

Tell your own party then, because they don't seem to know that Jesus as nothing to do with politics.

Contrary, they do. Republicans don't vote Republican because Jesus floated down and whispered a candidate's name in everyone's ear; they vote Republican because it aligns with their ideals.

Whats wrong with that as long they don't start fucking in the middle of the store who gives a shit?

I give a shit. And so do other people. It doesn't go for just gays - I don't go to the store to see ANYONE making out, straight or gay. It's called discourteous. Do that shit in private, public is not the space for that shit.

Why was he talking to you about that.

Because we were in a government class and he brought it up. I don't debate the gay rights movement. And at any rate, it was totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Your right religious clubs shouldn't be allowed anywhere near schools especially Catholics. I don't see anything wrong with a LGBT club at a school.

LGBT clubs shouldn't be allowed either, it's pushing a belief system at other people. Clubs in public schools should be indeterminant of a religion or orientation, they should be accessible to all students, save for your Honors Societies and academic clubs. The keyword is public.

Your dad is still making 100k a year thats double the average income per household in the US. With the numbers you said earlier $10 an hour for 25 hours a week, its 13k a year, even with 2 parents it comes to 26k. If your parents have trouble with 100k a year how are two parents suppose to support 2 kids and themself with 26k?

You just don't get it, do you? Read WHY my family can't afford my education with the money my dad makes, I've only explained it twice already in this thread. We don't have trouble supporting ourselves, they just can't pay my college because of the fucked up loan system in the US.

And again, I know people who do exactly that. I work with people who make that amount of money and get by just fine.

Why is it funny? And when was Clinton for single payer?

Because your points conflict. And she's made statements in support of it in the past, just as she's made statements against it. As I said, she's back and forth.

Well the economy here is going to shit because of 10 years of a conservative government having the economy rely on oil and Trump's foreign policies will only make it worst. Plus the starting a war on the eviroment and being a tweet away from a nuclear war.

Your country's economy issues don't have to do with Donald Trump. And please, spare the nuclear war theatrics, if any country was going to start nuclear war it would be North Korea or Iran.


Im not really understanding the point your trying to make here?

I'm saying your posts all suggest that America is mostly a left-leaning country, when in reality it's really only the urban areas that go left. As soon as you get away from the cities, just about everything else is supportive to the right.

Porpoise101
January 8th, 2017, 12:49 PM
only the urban areas that go left
Sure, but where do the majority of people actually live? According to the US Census Bureau, about 71% (https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html) of Americans live in cities of 50,000 or more people.

By urban, I am assuming you are talking about big cities. Well another report (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html) suggests that 62.7% of the people live on only 3.5% of the land. So that means that a smaller majority still lives in packed cities. It also seems to suggest that your state is considerably less-urbanized, which would explain your perception.

However, political divisions go much further than city v urban, it is also about culture, values, local industries, and the economy in the area. Even different areas in big cities can have different political views. Just look at Staten Island in New York.

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 8th, 2017, 12:53 PM
Bernie being in the race didn't make her position and policies less progressive because they weren't progressive before Bernie got in the race. Clinton was very much a progressive before Bernie got in the race. But Clinton got even more progressive during and after the primaries in an attempt to sway over Bernie supporters, which you may recall were very skeptical of Clinton.
Tell your own party then, because they don't seem to know that Jesus as nothing to do with politics. How many times must we explain!? Republicans don't oppose socialism or other economic systems because Jesus said socialism was evil. We oppose it because it is a failed system that just leads to economic downfall and a totalitarian government, nothing religious about it.

Whats wrong with that as long they don't start fucking in the middle of the store who gives a shit? You're the one who said they wanted to ban all public displays of religion, so don't go all personal freedom on me now.
Your right religious clubs shouldn't be allowed anywhere near schools especially Catholics. I don't see anything wrong with a LGBT club at a school. I see freedom of religion and speech is very low on your agenda, except of course when it comes to the gays, they can do whatever they want!
Your dad is still making 100k a year thats double the average income per household in the US. With the numbers you said earlier $10 an hour for 25 hours a week, its 13k a year, even with 2 parents it comes to 26k. If your parents have trouble with 100k a year how are two parents suppose to support 2 kids and themself with 26k? There is far more to personal economics than just yearly income. When someone says their parents can't or won't pay for college, I'm pretty sure they know more about their financial situation than you do.
Plus the starting a war on the eviroment and being a tweet away from a nuclear war. Please stop with the nuclear war junk, even your liberal friends see you as borderline obsessed over it.

NewLeafsFan
January 8th, 2017, 12:55 PM
I just happened to stumble across this while browsing the internet, entirely coincidental. Its remarkably telling of our discussion here, plus adds a bit of humor that this debate desperately needs.
image (http://cdn.liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/15826315_299289160467906_6568195943927505228_n-500x404.jpg)
image (http://cdn.liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/11221416_10207404810423993_8401906858828643003_n.jpg)

I hope you know how silly this looks. Are you actually comparring us today to a curupt government from thousands of yrs ago? When we pay taxes, they are not collected by thiefs who take most of them. Just because that happened during Jesus' time does not mean that he agreed with it.

The whole point of this thread was to try and help people understand why religion and politics cannot be mixed.

Posts merged. ~Amethyst_

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 8th, 2017, 01:04 PM
I hope you know how silly this looks. Are you actually comparring us today to a curupt government from thousands of yrs ago? When we pay taxes, they are not collected by thiefs who take most of them. Just because that happened during Jesus' time does not mean that he agreed with it.
1. We are living under a corrupt government.

2. Most of the money you believe you are giving for welfare is stolen by the government for other purposes.

3. You missed the whole point of the post.

The whole point of this thread was to try and help people understand why religion and politics cannot be mixed.
I thought the whole point of this thread was to bash religious people for not supporting socialism and high government taxation? That was clearly your intentions, and it seems like you are changing the subject because you can't rebute our claims. Please tell me how I and millions of other people are breaking our religious principles for not supporting government welfare.

brandon9
January 8th, 2017, 04:24 PM
Clinton was very much a progressive before Bernie got in the race. But Clinton got even more progressive during and after the primaries in an attempt to sway over Bernie supporters, which you may recall were very skeptical of Clinton.

Explaining this to him won't work man. I've been trying for awhile now. Valiant efforts aside, it's tough to even call how far left Clinton is because of the fact she did keep changing her stances to sway Sanders supporters, she started in one spot and ended up in a totally different one. She's there, but the exact extent I'd say is debatable, not that it matters. Country is better off with her in prison than politics.

How many times must we explain!? Republicans don't oppose socialism or other economic systems because Jesus said socialism was evil. We oppose it because it is a failed system that just leads to economic downfall and a totalitarian government, nothing religious about it.

Again, we won't get anywhere with this either, but yes, this is correct. Jesus and politics are not bedfellows.

You're the one who said they wanted to ban all public displays of religion, so don't go all personal freedom on me now.
I see freedom of religion and speech is very low on your agenda, except of course when it comes to the gays, they can do whatever they want!

Of course, that's just a typical thing right there. Like I said in an earlier post, for the left, you're either totally for the gay population or you're totally against them. There's no in-between with them. They're either "oppressed" or you're a bigot.

There is far more to personal economics than just yearly income. When someone says their parents can't or won't pay for college, I'm pretty sure they know more about their financial situation than you do.

Thank you for so eloquently wording that. It's refreshing to see someone who understands the idea that I know my own financial situation.

I did lose my Entitlement Spoon, I wonder if maybe you saw it somewhere? I just can't seem to find the thing!

Please stop with the nuclear war junk, even your liberal friends see you as borderline obsessed over it.

Nuclear war is not as likely as media would have anyone believe. I honestly don't believe any country is stupid enough to fuck with that power - though if one did North Korea would be my prime suspect - I think it's far more likely to see nuclear weapons used by terrorist organizations before you'd ever see a country with an actual sizeable armament deploy one.

I thought the whole point of this thread was to bash religious people for not supporting socialism and high government taxation? That was clearly your intentions, and it seems like you are changing the subject because you can't rebute our claims. Please tell me how I and millions of other people are breaking our religious principles for not supporting government welfare.

This is about the third time you've attempted to change the subject on this debate, you are new here so I'll give you a tip, stay on topic.

Sounds about right. Pretty much every detail.

Sure, but where do the majority of people actually live? According to the US Census Bureau, about 71% (https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html) of Americans live in cities of 50,000 or more people.

By urban, I am assuming you are talking about big cities. Well another report (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html) suggests that 62.7% of the people live on only 3.5% of the land. So that means that a smaller majority still lives in packed cities. It also seems to suggest that your state is considerably less-urbanized, which would explain your perception.

However, political divisions go much further than city v urban, it is also about culture, values, local industries, and the economy in the area. Even different areas in big cities can have different political views. Just look at Staten Island in New York.

The problem is not that people live in the cities, the problem is that all the leftists live in the cities. Your population of right/conservative voters in the cities are always fucked when election day comes because all your progressive liberal voters are gathered in these mass population areas. Remove the concentration factor and you'd find that there are more Republican voters in the cities than you would believe there to be. You'd lose traditionally democratic areas in that event.

I hope you know how silly this looks. Are you actually comparring us today to a curupt government from thousands of yrs ago? When we pay taxes, they are not collected by thiefs who take most of them. Just because that happened during Jesus' time does not mean that he agreed with it.

Well that's what's been happening all over this thread by mattsmith48 so why not? Apparently the Christians still stone women for not being virgins when they marry!

I've already explained the concept of the Bible recording human history. It seems like I'm always having to refresh you and the other guy about what I have and haven't said previously... Might be a sign? And again, as PlasmaHam and I have said repeatedly, Jesus isn't the focal point here.

By the way, your arguments (as misguided as they are) might carry a bit more weight in this forum if you enabled spell check on your computer. You're not missing difficult words here, it's simple grammar and basic words.

mattsmith48
January 8th, 2017, 06:56 PM
If you think that paying taxes is pissing away money than you dont even know what taxes are. If you think that paying for your military, government workers, social assistance, ect us pissing away money than think about what your country would be like without you pissing away all this money.

Ive Never said paying taxes is pissing away money brandon9 did, and yes, millitary spending is pissing money away.

No, again you lack understanding. The education is devalued when it is not paid for, not because parents can pay for their children. If the child can walk into the college for free and no cost is associated, then comes the devaluation.

If your parents pay for your education, you work as much to pay for it than if its your parents' taxes that pay for education, the value of an education is not in how much you work to pay but how much you work in the class room.

They were progressive from the start, the point I'm making is her policies weren't as progressive as Bernie Sanders had made his to be. Compared to his position, Clinton could - by DEMOCRAT standards - be said to be more conservative, as conservative is the opposite of progressive. But, for the umpteenth time, she is NOT an actual conservative. Your lack of knowledge of American political parties and concepts is really quite apparent, as this is not the first or even second time I have explained this exact concept to you.

She was for TPP, she is pro-fracking and pipelines, she was against gay marriage until a few years ago, she voted for the war in Irak and supported the war on terror... Does it sound like liberal positions

Contrary, they do. Republicans don't vote Republican because Jesus floated down and whispered a candidate's name in everyone's ear; they vote Republican because it aligns with their ideals.

I meant the politicians in the Republican party.


I give a shit. And so do other people. It doesn't go for just gays - I don't go to the store to see ANYONE making out, straight or gay. It's called discourteous. Do that shit in private, public is not the space for that shit.


I don't have anything against it.

Because we were in a government class and he brought it up. I don't debate the gay rights movement. And at any rate, it was totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

If it was relevant to the discussion he had every right to bring it up.

LGBT clubs shouldn't be allowed either, it's pushing a belief system at other people. Clubs in public schools should be indeterminant of a religion or orientation, they should be accessible to all students, save for your Honors Societies and academic clubs. The keyword is public.

Pushing what belief?

They live in a country where 1 of the two political parties openly promotes hate towards the LGBT community and a club like that can bring them support and confort.


Because your points conflict. And she's made statements in support of it in the past, just as she's made statements against it. As I said, she's back and forth.

Which of my points conflict? And why does it matter what Hillary Clinton's position is on this.

Your country's economy issues don't have to do
with Donald Trump.

Currently no, its due to low oil prices and 10 years of the conservative party being in power. but we are your biggest trade partner and President Pussy Grabber fucking up your economy will not help ours

And please, spare the nuclear war theatrics, if any country was going to start nuclear war it would be North Korea or Iran.

Why would Iran start a nuclear war and how could they, they don't have any nukes.

How many times must we explain!? Republicans don't oppose socialism or other economic systems because Jesus said socialism was evil. We oppose it because it is a failed system that just leads to economic downfall and a totalitarian government, nothing religious about it.
Yeah like what happen in all those socialist countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden... People living in those countries seem pretty happy with their failed system and their totalitarian government.


You're the one who said they wanted to ban all public displays of religion, so don't go all personal freedom on me now.
I see freedom of religion and speech is very low on your agenda, except of course when it comes to the gays, they can do whatever they want!

1. Religion is a choice, being gay is not.
2. Im not against freedom of religion, Im just for secularism and the protection of children against brain washing and pedophilia.
3. I have nothing against free speech, but there should be some limitation when it comes to promoting hate and violence.

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 8th, 2017, 08:24 PM
If your parents pay for your education, you work as much to pay for it than if its your parents' taxes that pay for education, the value of an education is not in how much you work to pay but how much you work in the class room. You value something that you paid 100 dollars for more than something you got for free, right? Same applies to everything else, including college.
She was for TPP, she is pro-fracking and pipelines, she was against gay marriage until a few years ago, she voted for the war in Irak and supported the war on terror... Does it sound like liberal positions We are talking about the present, her prior positions are irrelevant to whether or not she is currently a liberal. She currently is all for the gays, she is against TPP, and she denounces her actions on Iraq and terror. Calling her a conservative for that kinda stuff is like calling Donald Trump a liberal because he is fine with gay/trans stuff and wants to centralize power. There is much more to it.

If it was relevant to the discussion he had every right to bring it up.
Can you stop your "Gays can do no wrong" narrative and actually think about what people post? brandon9 just said that the guy's comment about gay rights was irrelevant, so he had no right to bring it up.
Currently no, its due to low oil prices and 10 years of the conservative party being in power. but we are your biggest trade partner and President Pussy Grabber fucking up your economy will not help ours Oh please. Trump has done more for the economy as a president-elect than Obama has done in eight years. Maybe the problem with Canada is failing socialist policies eh?
Why would Iran start a nuclear war and how could they, they don't have any nukes. The same exact thing was said about North Korea up to the date they did their first test. For all we know, Iran is currently making or has nuclear weapons.
Yeah like what happen in all those socialist countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden... People living in those countries seem pretty happy with their failed system and their totalitarian government.Totally irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. How about you actually go back and realize that point.
1. Religion is a choice, being gay is not.
2. Im not against freedom of religion, Im just for secularism and the protection of children against brain washing and pedophilia.
3. I have nothing against free speech, but there should be some limitation when it comes to promoting hate and violence.
Wow, you are such a hypocrite, this isn't even worthy of a rebuttal.

Porpoise101
January 9th, 2017, 04:29 PM
I'd like to not that this is going to be all OT


Oh please. Trump has done more for the economy as a president-elect than Obama has done in eight years.

Please explain. I also have a tough time imagining any president really doing anything to fix the economy single handedly. We have a free-ish market system, meaning the President doesn't do much directly if you take time to step back a bit. Arguably, Obama did stuff with the stimulus, but that was an act of Congress first and foremost.

Maybe the problem with Canada is failing socialist policies eh?

Before we even start, I don't even know of Canada having economic issues. Maybe mattsmith48 would care to elaborate.

As for socialist-ness, the (right wing) Heritage Foundation lists Canada as more economically free than the US (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking). There is this misconception around (on both political sides) that Canada is some sort of socialist heaven/hell. That just isn't true.

For all we know, Iran is currently making or has nuclear weapons.

Nope. The International Atomic Association is bound to monitor them since the Iran deal. And even if they did have a lapse, I'd wager that the CIA is on top of any extra surveillance considering that they were able to sabotage their nuclear program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet) in the past.