I don’t know - I made a mistake? You misunderstood? This was so long ago that I don’t remember.
Yeah, that was wrong - I was thinking about me back when I was young and not disabled, so I just addressed that.
Where were there any cites that said a young able bodied person can get welfare?
What might happen in the future is immaterial to now. Obamacare is not available now, and may not be universally available in 2014, we simply cannot know. Sure, it looks like it will be implemented but we are talking the government here.
Also, Iowa is immaterial to California.
Oh hell yes - just income tax eats up quite a bit of it. You appear to be another one who could do with educating yourself on this one. I don’t get all that much monthly, and because my husband is still working I pay income tax on it. Plus sales tax, property tax, and on and on. Just about the only thing I don’t pay on any more is SS and Medicare, tho the husband still does of course.
So everyone on SS is a financial drain?
I don’t know what your point is here.
See above. I did the work to list out what I pay, now it’s up to you to refute it.
You haven’t been able to point out anything that I’ve said that is wrong, so your statement is not factually correct at all. Remember, just because you don’t agree with an opinion doesn’t make it wrong.
Both Europe and America are fundamentally Western societies accepting a liberal and constitutional government and capitalistic economics, leading to convergence. People in the 19th Century could hardly have imagined reactionary Spain or conservative Netherlands having a representative democracy based on universal suffrage as in the US but that is the case now.
One’s will is not always triumphant-as I pointed out even if one is motivated, one might not be able to secure enough funding or find the means to do so. For example I plan to get a job in college but I still need loans and a Pell Grant.
Depends on your definition of decent and why should someone not be able to fully develop their skills? Why should someone settle for being a plumber or an accountant when he as the skills to be a doctor?
“Unequal” or rather progressive taxation is an equitable means of taxation-taxing someone with say ten thousand dollars in income does not have the same effect on their livelihood as taxing someone with a million dollar in income at the ten percent.
I am not interested in vague statements like “fairly significant”.
Maybe because in the United States most people need automotive transportation unless they live in New York or some other central city?
Health insurance is in essence a massive gamble of whether you will contract some debiliating disease or condition that will incur massive costs.
Observe the TFR for the countries generally considered having the most generous welfare programs: Sweden (estimates ranging from 1.67 to 1.98), France (estimates ranging from 1.89 to 2.08), and New Zealand (1.99 to 2.16). All of these TFRs are slightly below the replacement level and in one case barely above it, hardly indicative of a “breeding like rabbits”.
It was a few posts above. And the captions on the chart clearly indicated both Medicare, Medicaid, and private costs indicating that both of these programs were at controlling total cost growth than private health insurance programs in general.
I have snipped a significant part of this post because the OP is just repeating the same vague things as if they are fact, and I’m tired of going around in circles on that.
Pay attention, this is an example of why life isn’t fair. If one is born into a family that cannot afford to send their kid to medical school, it doesn’t matter what skills he has, he simply doesn’t have the right to expect others to pay for his schooling. It isn’t like we have a shortage of doctors or anything else where a kid might want to “fully develop their skills”. Nobody, except your parents, has a responsibility to see that you can do that. So if all they can afford is to send you to trade school so you become a plumber, count your blessings that you are employed in a good job. If you still burn to become a doctor, save your money, put off extras and go to med school later.
It’s equitable to you, but not to those who are paying those high taxes. Why do you feel you have more right to their money than those who actually earned it?
I’m not sure it is “most” but even if it is, they do not need to buy a vehicle that is expensive to purchase and to operate. Neither do they need to have multiple vehicles and/or replace them every five years or so.
Well, not quite, but why is it you think others should pay for you to have it if you believe it is essentially useless?
If you want them to breed more, that “more” means they are going to be well above replacement rate.
None of the stuff you cited about other countries has anything to do with your desire for whites to outbreed immigrants.
So the government gives you money for your disability, you give a small percentage of that money back, and you consider yourself a “tax payer”? I don’t think most people would agree with that definition.
I agree this is an area where life isn’t fair, but most happily we have a way to correct it in this area through federal grants and loans (or better yet offering free tuition to at least some students). This blocks social mobility. In addition we already recognize the right to schooling (unless you advocate the total privatization of all education including K-12), for education is a social good that produces a better educated population that in turn produces more wealth, increases social mobiliy and equality, and reduces crime.
I don’t think I personally have a right to the money but rather that the government has as part of its powers to tax people for this money. And certain taxes are regressive already such as the sales and payroll tax, so progressive income taxation at the least ought to compensate for that fact. In addition saying it is unfair for someone with 10k and a million in income to be taxed at different rates is akin to saying that it is unfair for a 20 year old and an 85 year old to be given different tests to measure their physical abilities.
I don’t disagree this-I’m not a particular fan of gas-guzzlers myself.
I should have added for “young people”. People in their twenties or thirties generally don’t need it until they develop some debilitating disease or get into a horrible accident in which case they’re screwed if they don’t have insurance but OTOH for many people insurance is a significant burden on their income were they to pay for it.
When did I say “whites” in particular? I meant assimilated/native-born middle-class Americans in general irrespective of race. And why would breeding above replacement rate mean that they’d been popping three or four or even more kids.
Sweet Jesus! You aren’t 18? Considering the understanding and arguments you have put forth, I’m wondering if you need it. And please, don’t respond to this person any more. She ignores your cites, I don’t believe I have seen her provide one and for all her vehement hatred of government subsidies, she is a happy recipient. This is hypocrisy at it’s worse. How are you going to be angry at people accepting welfare and then be angry that you couldn’t receive it as a healthy, young, capable adult. Sure there are people that live off the subsidies that are lazy and only trying to take the system for all they can. That however is indicative of a larger problem. I would much rather pay for someone to be on welfare, housing and their college tuition for a few years if it meant that they would eventually be able to support themselves. Anyone that says people accepting government subsidies are lazy and just don’t want take care of themselves have no idea the different people accross the range of socioeconomic classes that accept subsidies. Especially if they hold this view while they themselves accept government subsidies. What a joke. Move on kid. I know this banter is certainly fun, but you have better things to do. You’re going places.
This is not “happily” for those who have to pay to send all of these people to college who have to have it now instead of just earning some or all of the money themselves, and perhaps going to college over a period of 6 years instead of 4. None of that would “block social mobility”, and neither would going to a trade school instead of university.
The point is, you want the government to tax us more for things you aren’t already getting. Like Obamacare, and that free college education. Sure, we expect the government to tax us in order to fund things that benefit the whole, but we are way into funding things people could get for themselves, if they would just learn some responsibility and to delay gratification.
I worked for almost 40 years, the last 10-15 disabled, and paid into my SS - now you think the government should assess me more taxes so you can go to college right now, and so you don’t have to pay your share of the medical insurance pool. Again, the government isn’t some faceless entity - when you expect it to give you things for free, someone else ends up paying for it. Again, why do you think you have a right to part of my retirement?
Which wasn’t the point at all, but I’ve gotten really sick of trying to keep you on point.
And that is why insurance costs so much, particularly private policies. And it’s another example of how you think “young people” should be getting this free ride.
I looked back and couldn’t find it, so maybe you didn’t say whites. If you said native-born, I may have translated that into white since in this area we have mostly white or Mexican. Anyway, middle class people can’t really afford to overbreed.
Um, replacement rate is supposed to be two, so above replacement rate would be more than two. And if you want them to outbreed the non-native born in this state, they are going to have to have a minimum of four each.
Its not a small percentage and all you are doing is showing your ignorance.
The two of you are a great example of what is wrong with far too many people these days, especially on this board. If you don’t agree with an opinion, it doesn’t matter how thin the argument put forth by the person on “your side” is, or how many really stupid lies you circulate, you are not in any way ever going to admit that the person on “your side” is wrong. Here we have a kid who not only doesn’t know diddly about insurance, Medicare or Medicaid, he is also providing “cites” that say essentially nothing. He deflects attention from his lack of facts by bringing up Europe and Mississippi. And the kicker? He’s already on the dole and he’s not satisfied with it. He insists he has the right to go to college, and apparently grad school, even tho he doesn’t have the money for it and doesn’t seem to think he should earn it.
And this is a kid you think is going places, a kid with his hand out for as much free stuff as he can get.
I hope you all aren’t as dumb as you appear and you only agree with what he says because he’s on the “right” side.
Why would I admit he is wrong when I agree with all he is saying and he consistently provides a valid argument. I would attempt to contradict your claims or “cites” as you put it, but you don’t have any. For all the poor people you claim are ripping off the government, I would say I know plenty that are receiving benefits because they have had horrible issues (unexpected layoff, slow business due to a lagging economy) that are receiving benefits or using federally backed student loans to eventually support themselves and NOT receive . I know way more conservative morons that receive subsidies while they complain about the “other” moochers that get subsidies and are just “lazy and expect to be taken care of.” Of course, please don’t talk crap about what they receive because they
“paid” into that.
Medicaid and Medicare are successful in an environment where medical cost are out of control. Sorry if I don’t blame someone unconscious from a horrible car accident for not comparing prices and or being knowledgeable of treatment that would be better for them. I guess I’m naive to expect people in the throws of a heart attack to haggle for a better price or a cancer patient to call a doctor out over an over price prescription drug that is suppose to be a better treatment.
This kid wants handouts and is “on the dole”. Do you believe that children, who have no or little legal responsibility over their medical issues should suffer from an irresponsible parent? Should a child suffer because their parent’s didn’t save up for their college? Why would you expect a child that was raised by such irresponsible parent to have the financial skills to budget for such big ticket items as college? Should society just cast such children off and leave them to their predicament or should we reach out to them, allow them the ability to seek further education and shape their own futures? I’m sorry you were raised in an era where “women didn’t need an education”. You were robbed and short changed by your environment. Why would you want that for someone else?
His mention of Europe and Mississippi were perfectly logical from what I read. I suggest you go a re-read the augments made. I would attempt to argue why I believe he he was correct in his assertions, but he was quite direct and clear while you just played like he pulled something completely out of his ass rather than acknowledge and attempt to counter his arguments.
It would seem that he is on the dole, since he receives some sort of medical insurance, expects to overcome his situation and eventually contribute back what others put in to support him. Sorry if I don’t believe a person who doesn’t have the right to vote yet should be held responsible for the "benefits’ he receives and should even be provide the basic necessities. Considering your thoughts on birthing children at all when there are so many children that need someone to take care of them, it would seem that you should adopt and provide someone in his position. If it makes you feel any better about myself and this kid, please remember, we will be paying into the SSI you currently enjoy.
Since the college goers themselves aren’t expected to pay for their own education (you even believe it’s the parents responsibility to pay) I don’t see why he expecting for someone else to pay for his college education is that illogical. Not that he said he expects it per se, from what I read, he just believes contributing to someone’s college education to be a more wise investment).
If you believe that people are only in agreement because he is on “our side” then I can’t likely change your mind. From what I see, evidence, sount argment and direct answers to question are likely winning this round, but you haven’t event showed up to the game.
That’s the thing - there has been no actual argument, just things like “Germany is a nice place to live” and “the way to faster assimilate illegals is for natives to have more babies” and “states want to attract low wage business so they can slash welfare”. His cites have included things like stats from the 60’s and a chart that just shows how costs have risen for Medicare. How can you think any of that is valid?
Well, I haven’t done much in the way of cites since I cannot pin him down to anything substantial. What do you want cited?
There are two issues here, that you have not been alone in lumping into one category. There are the “professional poor” or the “welfare moms” - people who have spent their whole lives living on the dole, which creates issues like these. Instead of dealing with the issue, people seem to think the answer is to just wall these folks off in their subsidized housing, and send them more money and goods for each baby they have. Which just perpetuates the problem, and makes it grow larger.
Then there are the irresponsible. They couldn’t be bothered to save, they couldn’t be bothered to buy insurance, they don’t budget their money and run up debt they cannot pay off. Many of them lost houses when the bottom dropped out of the housing market here because they bought houses that they had to know they couldn’t really afford. These are the folks that can’t wait until they can actually pay for it to buy a house, cars, have kids, go on vacations, etc. These are the folks like our young friend here, who seems to think that the government should, at the very least, give him a low interest loan so he can go to college, instead of delaying a year or two and paying for at least some of it himself. No, he can’t wait, he needs to go as soon as he is out of college, and to hell with how long he might be stuck paying off that loan. Every time I hear of someone who is getting a handout because of some horrible issue, a little digging shows that lack of planning on their part led to their downfall.
The only thing that “conservative morons” might be getting from the government is Social Security, and yes they did pay into it. What they get back is based on what/how long they paid in.
You are going to have to define “successful” there. Both of those programs pay the doctors/hospitals very little and are riddled with fraud. 90% of Medicare recipients get a supplement plan because Medicare itself essentially only pays half of their bills. Doctors can and do refuse to treat Medicaid patients, because it costs them money to do so, and hospitals will limit their treatment. What the government is willing to pay is just not enough.
This has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.
How about because it didn’t really make that much difference? I am sick and tired of people wringing their hands about these kids born into poverty and how we should keep throwing more and more money at them, all the while ignoring the history of that policy. How about if you need money from the government to raise your kid, you don’t get to keep it? Break the cycle right there.
For Germany, all he did was say things like they have wonderful social programs with no affect on anything else, with no cites. So I asked specific questions about Germany’s infrastructure, their tax rate and I forget what else, and he completely ignored it. Just repeated that Germany has no one starving, no one with medical care, all educated and the rich are still rich. For all I know, Germany is a logical example, but I sure wouldn’t know it by the information I got from him.
For Mississippi, I asked specifically why the state would want to attract low wage jobs, no answer, no cite. Now, if you think you know the answer to any of these questions, fire away. I’m sorry I just don’t accept statements as fact unless I can look into it somehow.
:rolleyes: Another one who doesn’t understand pensions. Whether or not the money you send to the government is specifically used to send me my SSDI (not SSI) is immaterial. If you are paying into a pension thru your work now, other than SS, do you expect to get back exactly the money you paid in, when you retire? God I’m sick of this weak stupidity.
Anyway, there is no reason why you or anyone else should expect that I should pay even more to support someone elses lifestyle decisions. Decades ago when I was in my child bearing years, I didn’t have any because I never had a stable life. By the time I was stable I was 30 and unmarried and beginning to realize I didn’t really want kids anyway. Besides, you don’t want me adopting this kid - I can’t afford to send him to college so he’d have to get a job to pay for it, and he wouldn’t be eligible for any handouts.
One’s parents are not “someone else”. Yes, I think the parents should pay for it, because it sets a precedence of responsibility for one’s actions. You have a kid, you make sure you do everything you can to create a functioning, contributing member of society. That includes setting up a college fund at least when the kid is born if not sooner.
And I’m not seeing any of that. Have you read the whole exchange, or just the recent parts? I have been giving up towards the end here.
Being a doctor and being a plumber (or other college-level vs. trade school level jobs) is a huge difference in income, so of course it would impede social mobility. Similarly going to college over several years means that you have less amount of years out of college to earn money.
Do you believe that every poor family in America could afford college graduation if they were just “responsible” nevermind that minimum wage has fallen when accounted for inflation for several decades, that actual income has stagnated at best for poorer Americans, despite the current recession, and deindustrialization?
And Obamacare is hardly “free” healthcare that involves the raising of a whole bunch of new taxes-most of its funding comes from subsidies (ie tax breaks).
What’s up with trying to turn this personal? I think government as part of its taxation powers should have the tax people for the general good due to the fact that we all live in the same society.
I was agreeing with your point that people could buy more affordable automobiles.
So then what would tell these young people to do? To buy health insurance despite the costs and the financial burden it’d put on them?
And this is what Obamacare tries to solve by instituting subsidies and exchanges to make insurance more affordable along with charging penalties to those who could afford insurance but don’t buy them to include more young people which will drive down healthcare costs.
Hence tax subsidies for children. Along with guaranteed parental leave.
Yes it has to be above 2.1, but generally even slightly being above 2.1 generally produces moderate population growth especially considering modern medicine insures most of those born do in fact grow up. In California though the main problem is white and black flight.
[QUOTE]
Such as which cites? Was my cite correctly pointing out that Medicare and Medicaid has less cost growth percentage-wise than private insurance “saying nothing” or the one where I pointed out that Mexico is rapidly becoming a middle-class nation? For that matter you haven’t provided any cites besides personal anecdotes.
Those are facts, pointing out where certain programs have worked or haven’t worked in the past.
I don’t wish to be on the “dole” (by which is meant just Medi-Cal considering my parents have not signed me up for food stamps or free school lunches or anything of that sort nor are they on welfare), nor do I intend to be on it on the rest of my life, but it is a necessity.
And I indicated before that intend to get a job to pay for college, but going by financial aid calculators, paying for most colleges will require grants and/or loans of some sort beyond what I earn from my job.
I believe I do have the right to go to college and grad school as part of a general social right to education from preschool to graduate school (dependent on one’s skills) for all Americans, not as some sort of a personal right exclusive to myself
Those stats indicated the effects of the Great Society on poverty in America while the Medicare cost growth chart included cost growth for Medicaid and private insurance too.
And my arguments are no more general than yours (ie “people are poor because they are irresponsible”)
Perhaps something that for example shows that the majority of poor people are so due to their own fault.
I hardly said Germany was some sort of utopia, merely that its social market economy produces better results than ours especially in areas such as health care. And you didn’t ask specific questions about infrastructure, tax rates, etc. but rather vague suggestions of whether they were negatively impacted by Germany’s welfare state.
If you really need a cite for the second part (although its quite logical and a well known fact): http://fcir.org/2012/08/08/report-low-wage-jobs-are-flooding-florida/
:rolleyes: Another one who doesn’t understand pensions. Whether or not the money you send to the government is specifically used to send me my SSDI (not SSI) is immaterial. If you are paying into a pension thru your work now, other than SS, do you expect to get back exactly the money you paid in, when you retire? God I’m sick of this weak stupidity.
So your whole point is that you think that you have a right to expect money from strangers, to go to college and make a pile of money? That being middle class isn’t good enough for you?
Do you believe that every poor family should have as many children as they want, and then the taxpayers should pay to make them into doctors and lawyers?
Obamacare is apparently expected to raise hundreds of billions of dollars, thru taxing the wealthy and businesses, and fining those without any sort of insurance. Are you really so naive that you think that that amount of money isn’t going to show up without cost? The wealthy are very good at getting out of paying tax, and big businesses aren’t bad at it either. Shoot, if we could raise that kind of money that easily, why would we have such a deficit? History shows that the government makes promises about funding new things, and then falling way short.
Apparently because you are growing up poor and already receiving government aid, you think that “the general good” must include things you are not entitled to, paid for by people who have gone forth and earned a living and paid their taxes. Why are you entitled to a better life than many of us had, using our money? That is why it’s personal.
Seriously? By saying you aren’t a fan of gas-guzzlers? And my point was that far too many people are irresponsible in the choices they make, as in buying that gas hog instead of insurance.
Well, golly. They manage to buy those SUVs, and expensive sound systems, and have babies, and buy houses and travel. Basic insurance, to cover catastrophic things that are not likely to happen to the young, is not all that expensive. Especially if they get a job where there is group coverage. My husband and I pay about the same as a car payment for health, dental and vision coverage for the two of us, and we are no where near young and healthy.
What Obamacare is doing is shifting the cost of the insurance premiums from the individual and on to the wealthy, businesses and those few who don’t get insurance. It is once again taking the responsibility to pay your way from you and putting it on the rest of society.
Do you really think that those things even come close to covering the cost of raising 3-4 middle class kids?
You still haven’t explained how overbreeding of whites and blacks is supposed to be a good thing.
That cite was just for Medicare or Medicaid, I forget which and it said zero about how that compared to private insurance. If you think it said something else, you’ll need to come up with the cite again because I was unable to find the post that it was in.
No, I haven’t provided any cites because I responded to yours and you ignored those responses. So why should I continue?
Not in context. All you talked about were the social programs, with a statement that the funding for them wasn’t affecting anything else. No proof, no details, nothing else, just “it works here”.
Why is that? You just got done saying there was no reason for young people to pay for insurance.
I do not recall you saying anything about getting a job, I just remember you complaining about how much time having a job would take away from studies and scheduling conflicts, or how taking time off from college to work full time would mean you wouldn’t graduate on the same time line as those who didn’t have to earn their college money.
Well, I’m not surprised and do wonder when it was that people began to think they deserve to leapfrog over others on the taxpayers dime.
Yes, and I responded something along the lines of “that’s nice but it was also decades ago”. If nothing else, those programs were mostly focused on education and training to get poor people jobs, not pay to send them to graduate school. Also, in order to make a point about whether or not any of that is really working, one would need to provide cites on completion rates, employment rates, whether or not any of them ended up out of poverty and how many. If these things were still working, the poverty rate wouldn’t be so high in this country.
You know that isn’t even close to my argument.
I have searched and have never been able to find a study, so a cite isn’t possible. All that is possible is to look at each individual factor and see how responsible people have been overall. Such as your young people not buying insurance, or all the people who bought homes before the crash, that they had to have known they couldn’t afford. In some cases, maybe many cases, it is the choices the parents make that create poverty for their kids, such as allowing a 15 year old girl to keep her baby, or to have kids while the parents themselves are living in poverty, or running up huge debt. There are so many ways the people financially shoot themselves in the foot.
Oh please. I asked about the condition of those things in that country - in the context of the discussion, what did you think it was about? Or do you believe that it’s actually possible to have a majority of a country receiving a bunch of things for free or underpriced from the government, without it having an impact elsewhere?
This cite doesn’t say that Florida is actively wooing businesses that pay low wages. The closest that it comes is the governor is taking credit for a dropping unemployment rate, but that is just him taking advantage, not anyone urging McDonalds and WalMart to build more stores there.
No, college aid should be tied to one’s grades and performance in college.
Ah I was unaware of the investment tax as it was unlike the individual mandate and the medical devices tax unheralded by either side. Our deficit is primarily due to the current recession. And I agree that the wealthy often get out of paying a tax, which is why I support cracking down on tax evaders and eliminating loopholes and deductions.
I don’t think I’m entitled to a better life than you, I think you or anybody else who suffered from poverty should have deserved the same support I suggest now.
I mean I agree with you those people are irresponsible.
How do you know these people mostly buy expensive consumer goods or spit out babies? And our culture at any rate encourages this sort of conspicous consumption-for example promoting home ownership which is often seen as a good investment.
Health is a concern of all society. Sick and unhealthy workers end up being less productive or can spread disease or otherwise cause societal costs.
No because as I said most parents probably won’t have three or four kids but rather two when they’d have had one.
Not overbreeding and such a birth-rate ensure that the native population’s growth at least somewhat matches that of immigrant population growth (whose birth-rates after a generation will rapidly decline and become assimilated) to further facilitate assimilation and to prevent drastic social changes.
Your responses (at least in the Mexican argument) was basically “I saw otherwise when I visited Mexico”.
Funding does not significantly affect anything else. Do you seriously think Germany is some sort of a Third World or Communist country? What must I show you exactly? I can cite that German is $24,152 or otherwise on First World levels or that Germany has world-class Autobahns and high-speed rail. But then you’d just argue there’s some area Germany must be inferior in.
There are very few incentives but I personally desire healthcare insurance in the instance of an emergency. Of course without Obamacare (or maybe even with it) there may be circumstances where I may be unable to obtain it.
I apologize if I wasn’t clear before but yes I’m perfectly willing to take on a part-time job to at least partially cover my college costs although those are real and serious concerns.
I don’t think anybody should “leapfrog” over, rather I think everybody should be at the same starting line.
There are other factors too obviously. As I’ve said before, income inequality has skyrocketed as wages and incomes for most Americans have stagnated (and currently one must end the Recession).
That is the gist of your argument, albeit laden with various anecdotal examples.
Those are all true, but the real question how often does it contribute to poverty as opposed to things such as unemployment or wage stagnation or deindustrialization?
Not a significant impact that makes the country worse or even similar to the US.
Its quite clear from the context when Governor Scott boasts of his role, he means that he has low taxes and few regulations and the like.
I am making entirely the opposite point: our healthcare system is the worst, because we throw eight times as much money at it. It was fairly obvious from the context that I was comparing the US to other national healthcare systems, incidentally.
It’s also true of healthcare systems that aren’t the best, like the UK NHS (it’s good, not great).
Let me put it in a perspective you may understand better.
Scenario- A smart kid comes from a poor family that could only pay to send him to plumber’s school. He went to plumbers school, worked 30 years and had a lifetime income of $1,230,630 (ave income is about 41K) and the government and over a life time the government collected 369,189 from him in taxes. The kid didn’t cost the government anything by way of welfare. He could pay for his children attendance to trade school.
Scenario 2- Same smart kid that comes from a poor family did well enough in school and was able to go to medical school at a public school and cost about 150K. He only got a job as an Urgent care doctor (the lowest ave salary) and lifetime income was 4,260,000 and the government collected $1,278,000 in taxes over his lifetime. His education fees were paid for via student loans, which he paid back and the paid an additional 60K in interest. Also, he could afford to pay for his own children to go to college.
So…when you all going to learn? Curlcoat is “right” and you all are “wrong”. That is how it’s always going to be. That’s how it’s always been in every topic she’s debated in. It doesn’t matter what cites you give…she is the one who is right and you are all wrong, wrong, wrong.
What it comes down is how long it takes each of you to realize that arguing with her is about as useful and productive as arguing with a brick wall. It’s “how long you feel like arguing with her” that is the question, not “if you will convince her you are right and she is wrong”, because that never happens, as I could cite at least 20 past Pit topics showing.
You could show her 100 cites that clearly show the facts and that she is wrong, and she will not read a single one of them, stick her fingers in her ears, go “lalalalalalalla, I can’t hear you, I’m riiiiiiight” all day long until she has the last word in this topic, because (and I really do think this is the case, as I’ve said in the past before) she seems to need the last word in most every Pit thread she starts in.
It doesn’t matter what you say…you are wrong, she is right. The circle will only end if you stop replying. End of.
I’m still waiting to hear how the Republicans who cheer when hate crimes are committed against Muslims are brave defenders of freedom of religion, unlike those dirty evil liberals.