Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Shocking....


cigarjoe
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

gQxb2cf.jpg

I agree with most, but not all of these.   Healthcare for All is too broad an expression.  Everyone has "access" to higher education, it's just that the government/taxpayers are not going to pay 100% of the cost.  Subsidies for profitable corporations is too broad a term.  What about the profitable corporation that builds a new factory in a depressed area?  Or one that agrees to continue to operate one in a depressed area?

Companies should not be able to trash the earth for profit.  What does that mean?  What about people who trash the planet for convenience or to save money?

Isn't it already against the law for anyone to "bribe" representatives?

Wall Street "gangsters" not going to jail when they "steal?"  Here again, too broad a phrase.

This is just like "Defund the Police."  It is a misused statement and angers too many people.

Your heart may be in the right place, but these things are too ambiguous and even offensive.🤨

I doubt most Americans believe all these things.  What is the source of this?

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ElCid said:

I agree with most, but not all of these.   Healthcare for All is too broad an expression.  Everyone has "access" to higher education, it's just that the government/taxpayers are not going to pay 100% of the cost.  Subsidies for profitable corporations is too broad a term.  What about the profitable corporation that builds a new factory in a depressed area?  Or one that agrees to continue to operate one in a depressed area?

Companies should not be able to trash the earth for profit.  What does that mean?  What about people who trash the planet for convenience or to save money?

Isn't it already against the law for anyone to "bribe" representatives?

Wall Street "gangsters" not going to jail when they "steal?"  Here again, too broad a phrase.

This is just like "Defund the Police."  It is a misused statement and angers too many people.

Your heart may be in the right place, but these things are too ambiguous and even offensive.🤨

I doubt most Americans believe all these things.  What is the source of this?

Perhaps it should read "Affordable healthcare"

Actually, not everyone HAS access to higher education.  the more affluent the community, the better the quality of available public education, and the more affluent the community, the ability to afford a better private school becomes.   The "depressed" area you mention isn't availed of such amenities.   And speaking of such...

The "profitable corporation" you mention building a factory in a "depressed" area, won't do so without being proffered a considerable tax incentive.  Meaning the area won't be less "depressed" due also because of workers with seniority being the first to be offered jobs  if they agree to transfer(as GM did with their SATURN plant in Tenn.) .

Companies trashing the Earth for profit refers to(of course) having clean air and water regulations relaxed or eliminated to enable them to pocket more profits( and of course, NOT pass those savings to the consumer) from not having to cover the cost of handling waste and smoke exhaust more responsibly.  And too, to also free more money to contribute to the election campaigns of legislators who promise them the relaxing or elimination of those regulations. ;)   Thought that was obvious.  And it's "People who trash the planet for convenience or to save money" that's ambiguous.

You or I can't bribe our representatives, but somehow, "lobbyists" manage to get away with it by calling them "contributions". 

And really, the OP never claimed "All Americans" believed these things.

Sepiatone

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Perhaps it should read "Affordable healthcare"

Actually, not everyone HAS access to higher education.  the more affluent the community, the better the quality of available public education, and the more affluent the community, the ability to afford a better private school becomes.   The "depressed" area you mention isn't availed of such amenities.   And speaking of such...

The "profitable corporation" you mention building a factory in a "depressed" area, won't do so without being proffered a considerable tax incentive.  Meaning the area won't be less "depressed" due also because of workers with seniority being the first to be offered jobs  if they agree to transfer(as GM did with their SATURN plant in Tenn.) .

Companies trashing the Earth for profit refers to(of course) having clean air and water regulations relaxed or eliminated to enable them to pocket more profits( and of course, NOT pass those savings to the consumer) from not having to cover the cost of handling waste and smoke exhaust more responsibly.  And too, to also free more money to contribute to the election campaigns of legislators who promise them the relaxing or elimination of those regulations. ;)   Thought that was obvious.  And it's "People who trash the planet for convenience or to save money" that's ambiguous.

You or I can't bribe our representatives, but somehow, "lobbyists" manage to get away with it by calling them "contributions". 

One poster did state 

And really, the OP never claimed "All Americans" believed these things.

Sepiatone

Access means able to get into or enter as long as you meet the qualifications, generally academic.   So, everyone with the grades has access.  As for money, and that is what you are talking about, that is a horse of a different color.  You are apparently speaking of Free College for everyone.

Your comment on tax incentives for investments is colored by your experiences as a union member at GM.  Does not apply at all to most of the country.  Even where it does, the new or expanded plant offers many jobs to the unemployed in the area where it is built because not enough union members will transfer.  Regardless, the fact is that profitable corporations will create new jobs if incentives are favorable.  Read Joe's original post.

My comment on the environment was only about people (you and me) and what we do to harm the environment.  It is not ambiguous at all.  Almost every product someone purchases comes in plastic, which is seldom recycled.  Even if sent for recycling much of it still ends up in landfills.  Many places no longer accept glass for recycling and some other products.  Pizza boxes immediately go to landfill if sent for recycling.   Then add it all the Amazon, eBay and other deliveries.  All in trucks to your door and contained in boxes and plastic wrap and huge amounts of polystyrene (often referred to a styrofoam.   Not to mention all the take out food containers.

Contributions are not "bribes."  The multitude of state, local and federal laws re: this make that clear.  They may not be nice, but they are not bribes.  Bribes are illegal.  Incidentally, you can make a contribution to your representatives, so in your thinking you can "bribe" them.

I never said "All Americans."  One poster stated "Yeah, most Americans believe in the same things."  I just included it in my post.  And if "most Americans" do NOT believe these things, why advance them when it will offend so many likely voters?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cid, I see that you "thanked" my previous post. I don't think you understood my meaning, I was saying that the way you nitpicked, parsed, and belittled so many aspects of the original post was an indication of why these things will never be achieved. Not just because of those who profit by their continued suppression, but due to those who can't see past their own pedantry to get things done that will benefit society in general.

Every aspect outlined in the original post by CigarJoe is a worthy goal that I agree with.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ElCid said:

Access means able to get into or enter as long as you meet the qualifications, generally academic.   So, everyone with the grades has access.  As for money, and that is what you are talking about, that is a horse of a different color.  You are apparently speaking of Free College for everyone.

 

 

!

Really?   Please produce the quote where I even in the slightest alluded to that.

Not everyone meets the qualifications because.....

Maybe the school district they come from is IN one of your "depressed areas"  which doesn't accrue the same property tax revenue as a more affluent community, and as cities generally fund their schools through property taxes, they can only provide the texts and educators they can more comfortably afford.  In other words;  It's a case of "you get what you pay for".  And the less you're able to pay the school districts teachers,  the slimmer the pickin's.

Sepiatone

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

!

Really?   Please produce the quote where I even in the slightest alluded to that.

Not everyone meets the qualifications because.....

Maybe the school district they come from is IN one of your "depressed areas"  which doesn't accrue the same property tax revenue as a more affluent community, and as cities generally fund their schools through property taxes, they can only provide the texts and educators they can more comfortably afford.  In other words;  It's a case of "you get what you pay for".  And the less you're able to pay the school districts teachers,  the slimmer the pickin's.

Sepiatone

I don't understand your position at all.   What is "access" as defined by you and whoever created the "billboard" originally posted?  When you look at other things on the original post and the current Democrat call for "FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE," to me it means free college.  Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so.

As for how schools are funded, only part comes from property taxes with the most coming from state governments in most states .https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45827.html.  However, there is a problem with equitable funding within a state due to variances in property taxes.  Also teacher salaries are generally based on state standards, with some input from school districts.

Personally, I think we should abolish all school districts and have states actually run the schools.  But, with input from county advisory boards.   S.C. has 85 school districts and 46 counties.  When I was in graduate school there were 96 school districts with some being so small as to not even having a high school.  One county has seven school districts even though it is not the largest county in the state.

Still say everyone currently has "access to college" if they meet the admissions standards.

Your argument seems to mean there should be better schools and better teachers.  No argument with that, but that is entirely different from "Everyone Should Have Access to Higher Education."  Of course that also begs the question, what is "higher" education?  Anything post-secondary?  That would include all types of technical training by institutions.

Still do not believe it should be free.  Also, if everyone goes to college, who will do the vast number of jobs that do not require a college education or even a "community college" education?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ElCid said:

I don't understand your position at all.   What is "access" as defined by you and whoever created the "billboard" originally posted?  When you look at other things on the original post and the current Democrat call for "FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE," to me it means free college.  Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so.

As for how schools are funded, only part comes from property taxes with the most coming from state governments in most states .https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45827.html.  However, there is a problem with equitable funding within a state due to variances in property taxes.  Also teacher salaries are generally based on state standards, with some input from school districts.

Personally, I think we should abolish all school districts and have states actually run the schools.  But, with input from county advisory boards.   S.C. has 85 school districts and 46 counties.  When I was in graduate school there were 96 school districts with some being so small as to not even having a high school.  One county has seven school districts even though it is not the largest county in the state.

Still say everyone currently has "access to college" if they meet the admissions standards.

Your argument seems to mean there should be better schools and better teachers.  No argument with that, but that is entirely different from "Everyone Should Have Access to Higher Education."  Of course that also begs the question, what is "higher" education?  Anything post-secondary?  That would include all types of technical training by institutions.

Still do not believe it should be free.  Also, if everyone goes to college, who will do the vast number of jobs that do not require a college education or even a "community college" education?

I seem to recall some TV news program in the mid '60's or so profiling the way education is handled in the state of Hawaii.  Something about all education dollars from taxes( as only a certain percentage of property taxes are channeled for that purpose) being put in one big "bucket"  and distributed equally among all the state's school districts.  That way, it's figured, all districts, equally funded, can offer all public schoolchildren in the state a level playing field.  And that all children, throughout their school years are offered the same educational instruction as all other children and students is what I mean by "access".   And for me, the definition of "higher" education is higher in quality, regardless the grade level.  For instance, many of my wife's nephews(who  only became my nephews "by marriage"  ;) ) who were educated in Detroit's long questionable school system,  which long suffered from funding issues, could, when I first knew them, were either already out of school, or middle school age but could barely read at a 2nd grade level.   At that time, my then 10 year old daughter could read "circles" around them.

Now some here might consider what supposedly goes on in Hawaii as "socialism",  but since it centers on only one aspect of  social function, I think it's not.  I think the real disparity in education IS at the college level, where some colleges feel due to the affluence of much of their alumni they can charge exorbitant tuition fees. It's really unabashed elitism, which shouldn't have any place in education.  I'm not advocating anything for free.  Just that the "standards" for college should remain totally on academic achievement, not how much more you're able to pay.  Seems to me, in many cases, there're too many people making very good annual salaries in arranging for many families to spend decades deep in debt in order for their children to spend several years getting a degree in a field that might not be useful by the time they graduate(obsolete or overrun).  A more fair and reasonable financial program might be more desirable.  Except to the colleges that is.  ;) And of COURSE not everyone, by either monetary ability or lack of qualifying grades,  will be going to college.(even with a more fair financial system there will still be those who can't cut it financially).  And too, others who have no desire to go to college(like me) and consider a job as more a means to an end and NOT a matter of social status or something that defines who I am that will more than gladly "do the vast number of jobs that do not require a college education".  ;) 

Sepiatone

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

I seem to recall some TV news program in the mid '60's or so profiling the way education is handled in the state of Hawaii.  Something about all education dollars from taxes( as only a certain percentage of property taxes are channeled for that purpose) being put in one big "bucket"  and distributed equally among all the state's school districts.  That way, it's figured, all districts, equally funded, can offer all public schoolchildren in the state a level playing field.  And that all children, throughout their school years are offered the same educational instruction as all other children and students is what I mean by "access".   And for me, the definition of "higher" education is higher in quality, regardless the grade level.  For instance, many of my wife's nephews(who  only became my nephews "by marriage"  ;) ) who were educated in Detroit's long questionable school system,  which long suffered from funding issues, could, when I first knew them, were either already out of school, or middle school age but could barely read at a 2nd grade level.   At that time, my then 10 year old daughter could read "circles" around them.

Now some here might consider what supposedly goes on in Hawaii as "socialism",  but since it centers on only one aspect of  social function, I think it's not.  I think the real disparity in education IS at the college level, where some colleges feel due to the affluence of much of their alumni they can charge exorbitant tuition fees. It's really unabashed elitism, which shouldn't have any place in education.  I'm not advocating anything for free.  Just that the "standards" for college should remain totally on academic achievement, not how much more you're able to pay.  Seems to me, in many cases, there're too many people making very good annual salaries in arranging for many families to spend decades deep in debt in order for their children to spend several years getting a degree in a field that might not be useful by the time they graduate(obsolete or overrun).  A more fair and reasonable financial program might be more desirable.  Except to the colleges that is.  ;) And of COURSE not everyone, by either monetary ability or lack of qualifying grades,  will be going to college.(even with a more fair financial system there will still be those who can't cut it financially).  And too, others who have no desire to go to college(like me) and consider a job as more a means to an end and NOT a matter of social status or something that defines who I am that will more than gladly "do the vast number of jobs that do not require a college education".  ;) 

Sepiatone

 

Think I understand what you are saying, but may be wrong.

Colleges today cost too much for most people.   Public colleges cost less, but still very high.   States provide less support than they used to, so up to colleges to raise money any way they can.   The cost of instruction and services provided by colleges far exceeds what it used to.  Just as costs to manufacture cars and pay their employees and retirees has gone up.  In addition, students want far more than back 25 and 50 years ago.   

Don't understand your "a more fair financial system there will still be those who can't cut it financially" statement.  I thought you were advocating that the government provide sufficient funding so that everyone could go to college without finances being considered.

As for families with good incomes having to borrow for kids to go to college.  Not new at all.  My father worked in a paper mill and put both his children through college without borrowing anything.  He had saved up and sacrificed for it.   The supervisor two levels above him had one child and he did have to borrow to send her to college.   Should the government be responsible for poor choices by parents?

S.C. has a method whereby they provide more money to poor school districts than to wealthy ones.   The problem with schools in poor districts is complex.  Lack of money is one issue, but because of the demographics of the families, there is far less support for schools and education in general.  Schools have a hard time attracting better teachers because of where they are located.  Even extra pay won't get them there in many cases.  Children from homes that do not emphasize education, perform poorly.  The families and the community share the "failures" of these schools.  Not to mention students who are not motivated to learn.

As for those with no desire to go to college, that is a shrinking group.  I have known young people who felt they had to go to college because everyone else was.    Far too many flunked out after wasting their time and the instructors.  So, the pool of candidates for the non-college jobs is shrinking.  Also, many fields now require a "college" degree.  Even many police officers often have two or four year college degrees.  Unheard of 40 years ago.  Same for many other occupations.  The employers require the degrees whereas they used to not to.

If I read your other posts correctly, 50 or 60 years ago you decided to go to work for General Motors.  The times have changed since then.  I had an uncle and a cousin who lived in Detroit area and worked for Ford.  The uncle worked on the assembly line, but his son went to college to work in some other position.  My father worked 42 years for a paper company.

Your use of access appears to be one of semantics.  Your view is different from mine.

Higher education means (and always has) post high school.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "Fair financial system" merely means;  basing payments at a level that won't "break" some families for a long stretch of time.  And/or that can be paid in full before the student in question reaches retirement age.

Kudos to your Father for "sacrificing" for you and your sibling's education.  But if your GRADES were worthy( and SAT scores too) WHY should he have had to sacrifice anything?  Why couldn't the students who qualify academically  have themselves or their families  considered for a financial plan  that doesn't send Mom and Dad to the poorhouse?   I'm not advocating the government  provide much of anything.  Knowing the government, they'd feel they should have more of a say in any curriculum issues.  And I wouldn't want to see that happening.   

I don't see the pool of of candidates for "non-college" jobs shrinking. as those jobs aren't shrinking either.   And what!  Going to college because "everyone ELSE" is going to college?  Gotta wonder how people so stupid GOT into any college to begin with, don'tcha?   But that could be just me.  I've often had to explain to people, whenever a situation called for it that...

The two words that save me from buying or doing anything  stupid are "Everybody else".  ;) 

Sure, I "decided" to work for GM.  As my Dad worked for Cadillac and was close to a supervisor HE once trained for a few jobs when the supervisor first hired in, it helped assure my  being hired.  In fact, most guys I worked with that were within my age range also had Dads who worked there.  It's how we got in.  ;)   Can't complain.  And don't regret it.  Now retired, I still have hospitalization I don't pay for out of pocket, and that "shouldn't be necessary" ;)  dental and vision I make no out of pocket payments for.   While my college educated engineer  stepbrother pays twice my monthly pension check a month for his healthcare insurance only.   :o

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Sure, I "decided" to work for GM.  As my Dad worked for Cadillac and was close to a supervisor HE once trained for a few jobs when the supervisor first hired in, it helped assure my  being hired.  In fact, most guys I worked with that were within my age range also had Dads who worked there.  It's how we got in.  ;)   Can't complain.  And don't regret it.  Now retired, I still have hospitalization I don't pay for out of pocket, and that "shouldn't be necessary" ;)  dental and vision I make no out of pocket payments for.   While my college educated engineer  stepbrother pays twice my monthly pension check a month for his healthcare insurance only.   :o

That's what I didn't like about Obama Care. Luckily . My company had it but some of the vendors told us how expensive it was. But they had no other choice. We were always worried when a contract came up, that we'd be in the same boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

A "Fair financial system" merely means;  basing payments at a level that won't "break" some families for a long stretch of time.  And/or that can be paid in full before the student in question reaches retirement age.

Kudos to your Father for "sacrificing" for you and your sibling's education.  But if your GRADES were worthy( and SAT scores too) WHY should he have had to sacrifice anything?  Why couldn't the students who qualify academically  have themselves or their families  considered for a financial plan  that doesn't send Mom and Dad to the poorhouse?   I'm not advocating the government  provide much of anything.  Knowing the government, they'd feel they should have more of a say in any curriculum issues.  And I wouldn't want to see that happening.   

I don't see the pool of of candidates for "non-college" jobs shrinking. as those jobs aren't shrinking either.   And what!  Going to college because "everyone ELSE" is going to college?  Gotta wonder how people so stupid GOT into any college to begin with, don'tcha?   But that could be just me.  I've often had to explain to people, whenever a situation called for it that...

The two words that save me from buying or doing anything  stupid are "Everybody else".  ;) 

Sure, I "decided" to work for GM.  As my Dad worked for Cadillac and was close to a supervisor HE once trained for a few jobs when the supervisor first hired in, it helped assure my  being hired.  In fact, most guys I worked with that were within my age range also had Dads who worked there.  It's how we got in.  ;)   Can't complain.  And don't regret it.  Now retired, I still have hospitalization I don't pay for out of pocket, and that "shouldn't be necessary" ;)  dental and vision I make no out of pocket payments for.   While my college educated engineer  stepbrother pays twice my monthly pension check a month for his healthcare insurance only.   :o

Sepiatone

No use continuing this discussion.  If businesses pay for it, they raise the price of their goods or services.  If government pays for it, they raise taxes or cut out other programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marysara1 said:

That's what I didn't like about Obama Care. Luckily . My company had it but some of the vendors told us how expensive it was. But they had no other choice. We were always worried when a contract came up, that we'd be in the same boat.

Somebody has to pay for it.  It ain't free.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ElCid said:

No use continuing this discussion.  If businesses pay for it, they raise the price of their goods or services.  If government pays for it, they raise taxes or cut out other programs.

Sure, I'll let it rest.  But going a bit off topic, I always bristled when some idiot would claim me and other GM workers(and Ford and Chrysler) were making $40-$50 dollars or more an hour, "When you add in your Blue Cross."  :rolleyes:  Truth be known though, WE weren't getting paid any of that.  And originally, the financing of those benefits came from agreeing to NOT accept wage increases in order to pay for them.  I'd typically respond to those clowns with; "Until I can whip out my Blue Cross card and pay for food or clothing and utility bills with it, I'm only making (at one particular time some fool came up with this)   $19.75 an hour."   So you see...  The cost of goods or services would would be raised regardless.  If not to finance the benefits,  then to pay the negotiated wage increases.  ;)   

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Sure, I'll let it rest.  But going a bit off topic, I always bristled when some idiot would claim me and other GM workers(and Ford and Chrysler) were making $40-$50 dollars or more an hour, "When you add in your Blue Cross."  :rolleyes:  Truth be known though, WE weren't getting paid any of that.  And originally, the financing of those benefits came from agreeing to NOT accept wage increases in order to pay for them.  I'd typically respond to those clowns with; "Until I can whip out my Blue Cross card and pay for food or clothing and utility bills with it, I'm only making (at one particular time some fool came up with this)   $19.75 an hour."   So you see...  The cost of goods or services would would be raised regardless.  If not to finance the benefits,  then to pay the negotiated wage increases.  ;)   

Sepiatone

Sometimes the "hourly wage" of employees is computed by the actual pay amount and then add in the fringes - health insurance, other insurance, retirement costs and so forth.  So, the corporation computes the hourly cost as everything employee related.

The major problem that doomed Studebaker-Packard was the employee costs, which were higher than the Big Three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Sometimes the "hourly wage" of employees is computed by the actual pay amount and then add in the fringes - health insurance, other insurance, retirement costs and so forth.  So, the corporation computes the hourly cost as everything employee related.

 

And the problem with that was fools finding that out and thinking that was what we were actually being PAID per hour.  :rolleyes:

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sepiatone said:

And the problem with that was fools finding that out and thinking that was what we were actually being PAID per hour.  :rolleyes:

Sepiatone

It is what you were being paid per hour in a real sense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that almost every box includes the word "should":     I can see most Americans agreeing on most of these items related to "should".

The real question is:  does one believe the government should mandate\require\force such behaviors using governmental powers and laws and if yes,  to what extent.

This is where the disagreements start.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...