TOPS to be reduced drastically???

[dawg80]

Some people are "stupid." They never learn. They see others they know generally failing in life, struggling financially, and what do they do....? They replicate it and end up poor just like them. That is STOOOOOPID! That is what I meant by some people are stupid, and thus poor. Not all poor people are stupid....but one has to question why they are poor in this country. In their case, maybe they are just plain lazy and worthless.

To achieve lower middle class status, in this country, is easy. Easy, provided you actually want it! From there it takes work, effort, and a desire to improve oneself economically, to move up. There are no barriers in anyone's way. Libtards talk about "white privilege" blah, blah, blah....pure bullchit! The ones facing barriers are the morons who hook their cart to the libtard horses. They blame everyone and everything else, and wait for some libtard to come save the day.

I could give two specific examples of people who rejected their "environment" and have gone on to achieve great things. And, an example of someone who was fortunate to inherit some assets, but then squandered it by making STOOOOPID decisions. It still comes down to each person's economic IQ.

[brtransplant]

Some people are "stupid." They never learn. They see others they know generally failing in life, struggling financially, and what do they do....? They replicate it and end up poor just like them. That is STOOOOOPID! That is what I meant by some people are stupid, and thus poor. Not all poor people are stupid....but one has to question why they are poor in this country. In their case, maybe they are just plain lazy and worthless.

To achieve lower middle class status, in this country, is easy. Easy, provided you actually want it! From there it takes work, effort, and a desire to improve oneself economically, to move up. There are no barriers in anyone's way. Libtards talk about "white privilege" blah, blah, blah....pure bullchit! The ones facing barriers are the morons who hook their cart to the libtard horses. They blame everyone and everything else, and wait for some libtard to come save the day.

I could give two specific examples of people who rejected their "environment" and have gone on to achieve great things. And, an example of someone who was fortunate to inherit some assets, but then squandered it by making STOOOOPID decisions. It still comes down to each person's economic IQ.

I think it comes down to a person's drive and his willingness to work for what he wants. I know plenty of people of less than average intelligence that have made themselves wealthy through good old blood, sweat, and tears. They DID have the common sense not to consume every single dime they made, so perhaps that is, in fact, due to their economic IQ.

[Houston Techsan]

I think it comes down to a person's drive and his willingness to work for what he wants. I know plenty of people of less than average intelligence that have made themselves wealthy through good old blood, sweat, and tears. They DID have the common sense not to consume every single dime they made, so perhaps that is, in fact, due to their economic IQ.

As Forest Gump's momma said "Stupid is as stupid does". Those people were not stupid, just lower intelligence.

[Champ967]

Making college free distorts the free market as socialism always does ... Quite simply we now have more college graduates than the market demands.

One might say the same of primary education, fire protection, highways, parks, etc ...

I'd submit to you than a well-educated populace is more akin to a broad societal good -- and a legit sphere of govt activity -- than simply a market commodity to be bought and sold.

[PawDawg]

One might say the same of primary education, fire protection, highways, parks, etc ...

I'd submit to you than a well-educated populace is more akin to a broad societal good -- and a legit sphere of govt activity -- than simply a market commodity to be bought and sold.

Good stuff.

[Soonerdawg]

One might say the same of primary education, fire protection, highways, parks, etc ...

I'd submit to you than a well-educated populace is more akin to a broad societal good -- and a legit sphere of govt activity -- than simply a market commodity to be bought and sold.

Fire protection can hardly be compared to a college education. There is no interference with the market unless we wanted to have private fire protection companies. We would not have more fires than the market could bear because a local government provided fire protection.

As for primary education, it would be hard to phathom a situation in which we would overload the market with people who have basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills. In fact, the opposite is true. A community benefits economically from its citizens having this basic level of education. The cost of having an illiterate citizenry is higher than the cost to the local community to educate them. This is referred to by economists as the neighborhood effect. It isn't because it is a broad social good that makes it wise for a local community to fund primary education. It makes economic sense for a local community to have a citizenry that can read and write. Is saves the community money.

The lack of basic literacy in a community does have a negative neighborhood effect. But, there is no positive neighborhood effect to train citizenry to specific trades, occupations, and professions. A market operates best when the individual is free to make a decision as how, when, and where to enter a free market. When the government interferes with the free market in these areas, it distorts the market creating surpluses and shortages. Because of state and federal governmental interference in the education and occupation market, we now have too many college graduates chasing the limited number of jobs requiring a college education. In addition, we have too many colleges chasing a limited number of truly qualified college candidates. By creating an artificially high supply of college students, the market has responded by building more and bigger colleges. The cost of education rose artificially because that's what prices do when the demand increases artificially.

With that said, I accept that you are a socialist and don't have a problem with taking money from one person and giving it to somebody else for some "broad social good." But, I do not concede that a broad social good is the legitimate sphere of governmental activity. What I do not understand is how a professed Republican who is supposed to believe in free markets could advocat this broad social good. Further, I don't understand how a professed Republican would consider taking money from one person to give to another is a broad social good. Nay, it is a social evil. It is socialism, which should be a curse word to a Republican.

[dawg80]

Now, THIS is good stuff. Well done Sooner.

Too many people are simply clueless about economics and market forces.

[PawDawg]

Now, THIS is good stuff. Well done Sooner.

Too many people are simply clueless about economics and market forces.

How long has it been since our economy was driven by logic and economics 101?

I'm all for it, but it will never happen again.

Some are willing to sacrifice the few scraps received by the middle class in the name of "what is right". Some are willing to vote for a flaming liberal democrat in order to punish the GOP establishment.

I'm not. We've already lost the political battle here in what was once a great Republic.

[Soonerdawg]

our economy is driven by economics. It is, um, by definition driven by economics. The ill effects of socialism on our economy is real. I just described it to you.

Whether thar was covered in 101 or not, I don't remember. All I know is I learned somewhere what I discussed above.

With that said, my point is, not only is TOPS evil, but it has a very bad effect on our education system. It is the truth. What can't go on, won't. We are seeing the won't unfold right before our eyes.

As for politics, I'm no longer a Republican. I owe no alligence to them.

[Houston Techsan]

While it would be nice for everyone to choose their profession/occupation as the market demands there are sometimes barriers to entering the market -- education being a prime example of a barrier. When these barriers become too high we have monopolies which at first seems to be very efficient until the monopoly holders start to overcharge for items that we must have or cannot do without. That is where anti trust laws step in. One of the tests for "attempting to monopolize" under Sherman II is the difficulty in entering a market.

While all of us already have our degrees it would be beneficial for us to restrict the number of graduates in our fields thus decreasing competition against us. I know I think there are way too many lawyers so I would be for raising the standards for law school admission to reduce the number of graduates. It's just not elitism but personal economics that make some people want to make higher education more expensive and thus keep out the competition. By restricting the number of people who can afford to attend college you are, in a way, screwing with the free market system by raising the barrier. So don't preach "free market" economics to me.

[Soonerdawg]

While it would be nice for everyone to choose their profession/occupation as the market demands there are sometimes barriers to entering the market -- education being a prime example of a barrier. When these barriers become too high we have monopolies which at first seems to be very efficient until the monopoly holders start to overcharge for items that we must have or cannot do without. That is where anti trust laws step in. One of the tests for "attempting to monopolize" under Sherman II is the difficulty in entering a market.

While all of us already have our degrees it would be beneficial for us to restrict the number of graduates in our fields thus decreasing competition against us. I know I think there are way too many lawyers so I would be for raising the standards for law school admission to reduce the number of graduates. It's just not elitism but personal economics that make some people want to make higher education more expensive and thus keep out the competition. By restricting the number of people who can afford to attend college you are, in a way, screwing with the free market system by raising the barrier. So don't preach "free market" economics to me.

Almost always, the barriers to enter a market are barriers created by the government. There are a few exceptions such as natural barriers, but by in large the barriers are artificially created by government. I am a lawyer, yet I would be for eliminating the requirement of a law degree to practice law. The government has created that barrier.

Governmental interference with the higher education market has driven up the cost of education. To blame that on a free market would be silly. Further, massive student loan debt has been accrued because of the upward spiraling cost of education. To make matters worse, the quality of education has been diluted, causing the college degree to be worth less and less while costing more and more. We are facing a student loan failure crises because students paid for expensive degrees that are diluted, yet chasing after a limited number of jobs requiring a college education.

Don't blame freedom for your so called barriers. Put the blame where it belongs; on socialism.

[dawg80]

A true "free market" is pure. As I mentioned before, the market is like water and seeks its own level. ALL OF US are the market! Every decision we each make shapes it. It's the purest, fairest force there is. That's because the market is a result....not a cause. It's the measure of economic activity.

Now, one can predict how the market will react to certain stimulus. One can predict that because we have historic examples to draw on. For instance....what would the market reaction be to McDonald's raising their prices to $20/burger? Does McD's actually have to try it to see? Ah, nope, we kind of know already.

Only government can skew, and thus screw, the market. But, even that is temporary. Eventually market forces will prevail. Communism lasted 70 years in the former Soviet Union, but it collapsed under the weight of market forces. In the US we have shifted waaaaaaaaaaaaay too far to left with the government screwing things up. Slowly, but surely, market forces are starting to put a halt to that leftward shift. If Hillary is elected, then the government will continue working against the market and it'll take a little longer to see the pendulum swing back. If Trump is elected, we could see a flood of market forces sweep this nation back into prosperity. There is a LOT of money sitting on the sidelines waiting for a favorable economic environment to jump in. Regardless, if it takes 10-15 years (due to Hillary), or 10-15 months (under Trump)! eventually market forces will prevail.

Even now, under the worst POS prez in our history, we see examples of the market doing its thing. Obummer and his merry band of leftist morons have put the screws to the banking industry via over-regulation. That has virtually killed the economy by denying access to capital to millions of entrepreneurs. Yet! we see alternative lenders and crowd-funding have sprung up to fill the void. Nature, and the free market, abhors a vacuum.

[DawgBark]

Saw this today. Not sure who wrote it.

Conundrum
This may make you stop and think, if it weren't so true it would be laughable. Conundrum Free people are not equal.
Equal people are not free. (Think this one over and over…makes sense!) "A gun is like a parachute. If you need one,
and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again." The definition of the word Conundrum is: ...
something that is puzzling or confusing.

Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:
1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.
2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.
3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.
4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.
5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those
other countries. .
Makes you wonder who is doing the math. These three short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current
government and cultural environment:
1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun
owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works. And here's another one worth considering…
2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. But we never hear about welfare
or food stamps running out of money! What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second
didn't. Think about it.....and Last but not least :
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than
before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." – Plato

[dawg80]

Truth

[ChipDog]

Reading this thread is a reminder of where intelligence is concerned, the majority of the posters on this board represent both extremes: the very intelligent and the very unintelligent. Many fall in the meaty part of the curve in the middle, but most seem to reside at one extreme or the other.