Supremes to Colleges: Military Recruiter Bans Illegal

timberlandko wrote:

Straw man, Anon - there's much work to be done, much improvement needed. The difference between now and during the Democrats' heydey is that today the necessary work is being done and the needed improvements are being made. One place spending must be reigned in is entitlements ... get the freeloaders off the handout system and onto the production line.

The necessary work?? Freeloaders on handout system?? Entitlements?? You're hilarious Timber!! You sound like Alice in Wonderland Smile

Are you working multiple ID's here ??

Anon

0 Replies

At root, ALL taxes are paid by wage earners whether directly or as a cost component of goods and services purchased; do away with corporate taxes entirely, thus allowing producers to lower prices through reduced costs-of-doing-business, and you would see an economic boom of a nature never before witnessed.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Straw man, Anon - there's much work to be done, much improvement needed. The difference between now and during the Democrats' heydey is that today the necessary work is being done and the needed improvements are being made. One place spending must be reigned in is entitlements ... get the freeloaders off the handout system and onto the production line.

timber - You've got to know that corporate welfare is getting more than any ghetto welfare queens. And how do you justify Our government spending like a pubescent with their first credit card, and sloghing off the responsibility for that unto our grandkids? We are spending billions evrey week in Iraq - are you ok with that?

Of course he is Snood, I'll bet 10-1 he's cashing in on the military glut ... one way or the other. Stocks, bonds, Halliburton maybe ... something to do with war and killing people ...

Anon

0 Replies

You'd lose that bet, Anon; percentage-wise, I'm most heavily invested in Real Estate, Healths and Financials, and I own no Halliburton.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

At root, ALL taxes are paid by wage earners whether directly or as a cost component of goods and services purchased; do away with corporate taxes entirely, thus allowing producers to lower prices through reduced costs-of-doing-business, and you would see an economic boom of a nature never before witnessed.

You don't know that. There isn't evidence of that. Or rather, there's just as much evidence to the contrary - that the profit would translate into nothing but returns for the most wealthy, and that they would continue and intensify their outsourcing of ever cheaper labor.

0 Replies

Thats nonsense, snood - corporate taxes are paid for by the consumer. Its a closed loop; without the production of the consumers, there would be no product to consume. It all comes from the consumer.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Thats nonsense, snood - corporate taxes are paid for by the consumer. Its a closed loop; without the production of the consumers, there would be no product to consume. It all comes from the consumer.

You didn't reply to the earlier posts referencing the big giveaways going to the corporations.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Interest rates and the COST of an education have ZERO TO DO with this subject matter. As a matter of fact, with the size of some of the endowments at many universities, I am SHOCKED that they charge what they do.

Actually Woiyo,

I missed this ...

"Interest rates and the COST of an education have ZERO TO DO "

Yea they do ... because this is the crux of the argument about letting the military on the campuses. The Fed's are saying that they will cut funding even more, which makes it cost even more to get an education.

I consider investing in education is investing in the future of our country. The actions taken by the Bush Administration are making just that much harder to get that education. The rich can be assured that their youth can get the higher education, but not anyone else.

Here's the question. Do my grandchildren have any more right to a college education because I happen to have money than someone elses grandkids who doesn't?? Isn't higher education something that benefits the nation as a whole??

Anon

0 Replies

I agree that military recruiters should have full access to campuses, but I think we are ignoring the original protest. Some law schools claim that since the military discriminates in hiring, they are ban from campus like other organizations that discriminate. Many campuses have rules that require that organizations that admit to overt discrimination can't recruit on campus. So the SC did not invalidate that policy, but said that those banned recruiters don't have to fund the colleges in question. How the government uses its financial weight in general is an interesting question. If states don't raise the drinking age to 21, no highway money. Don't administer tests to children at state expense, no education money. This gambit is fairly common. Is it ok to tax us, then only give the money back if we adhere to Washington's vision, or should we pay more in state and local taxes and reduce federal control?

0 Replies

What giveaways? The economic incentives which now and over the past 5 years have been stimulating the economy hardly may be categorized as giveaways.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Is it ok to tax us, then only give the money back if we adhere to Washington's vision, or should we pay more in state and local taxes and reduce federal control?

If you don't like the laws, elect legislators who will enact laws more to your liking.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

engineer wrote:
Is it ok to tax us, then only give the money back if we adhere to Washington's vision, or should we pay more in state and local taxes and reduce federal control?

If you don't like the laws, elect legislators who will enact laws more to your liking.

You're livin' in fantasy land . . . the corporate interests in the United States have the best government money can buy, no matter how we vote. So long as we have "the great two party system," the corporations will own Washington, D.C. It happens to benefit your portfolio, so you think it's all just fine and dandy.

The rest of us, however, do not appreciate people pissing down our collective pants leg, and then telling us it's raining.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

What giveaways? The economic incentives which now and over the past 5 years have been stimulating the economy hardly may be categorized as giveaways.

Here's the thing, though - I would consider raising the minimun wage to at least compete with the cost of living - I would consider that an "economic incentive". Why is it only an "economic incentive" if its billions given to corporations, and not a living wage given to those below the poverty line?

0 Replies

Our system is predicated on equal opportunity, Set, not equal result. Any may prosper or fail as their fate and circumstances permit. Of course, those who do not prosper may be expected to be displeased with the hand they've been dealt. Life ain't fair; never has been, never will be, but that's life.

0 Replies

snood, the flaw with raising the minimum wage is that doing so increases the cost of production - who pays for the higher wage but the consumer? If you raise the floor, the table goes up right along with it.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Our system is predicated on equal opportunity, Set, not equal result. Any may prosper or fail as their fate and circumstances permit. Of course, those who do not prosper may be expected to be displeased with the hand they've been dealt. Life ain't fair; never has been, never will be, but that's life.

And the only people who seem to quote that philosophy are the ones pleased with their circumstances. What about all the unctions down through time that a people can be measured by how they treat their least fortunate? And if you really believe everyone has equal opportunity, then we probably don't have much we can agree on...

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

I agree that military recruiters should have full access to campuses, but I think we are ignoring the original protest. Some law schools claim that since the military discriminates in hiring, they are ban from campus like other organizations that discriminate. Many campuses have rules that require that organizations that admit to overt discrimination can't recruit on campus. So the SC did not invalidate that policy, but said that those banned recruiters don't have to fund the colleges in question. How the government uses its financial weight in general is an interesting question. If states don't raise the drinking age to 21, no highway money. Don't administer tests to children at state expense, no education money. This gambit is fairly common. Is it ok to tax us, then only give the money back if we adhere to Washington's vision, or should we pay more in state and local taxes and reduce federal control?

That's the issue, engineer. Many schools have policies prohibiting all discriminating employeers from recruiting, not just the military. So, the military discriminates against gays, and were being held to the same standard as all other recruiters.

Whether the military should discriminate, in that respect, is a whole different issue.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Our system is predicated on equal opportunity, Set, not equal result. Any may prosper or fail as their fate and circumstances permit. Of course, those who do not prosper may be expected to be displeased with the hand they've been dealt. Life ain't fair; never has been, never will be, but that's life.

That's disingenuous horsie-poop. The boy with the big campaign contribution check in his hand has access that the mere voter does not. To claim that the current system is based upon equal opportunity is to peddle fairy tales. I don't believe in fairy tales, and haven't done for more than half a century.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Our system is predicated on equal opportunity, Set, not equal result. Any may prosper or fail as their fate and circumstances permit. Of course, those who do not prosper may be expected to be displeased with the hand they've been dealt. Life ain't fair; never has been, never will be, but that's life.

And the only people who seem to quote that philosophy are the ones pleased with their circumstances. What about all the unctions down through time that a people can be measured by how they treat their least fortunate? And if you really believe everyone has equal opportunity, then we probably don't have much we can agree on...

Snood,

Ya know, Timbers got a point! If we didn't have the permanent poor, who would do the shiit work us monied folk don't wanna do ??

Anon

0 Replies

By the way, Big Bird, you had no basis from my post to bring up a contention about equal outcomes--nothing in what i wrote suggested that i support such a construction of how the economic system does or should operate. In short, you erected a strawman.

0 Replies

Supremes to Colleges: Military Recruiter Bans Illegal

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know