Arby's apologizes after officer is denied service for being a cop

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 10:05 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: What was ridiculous, specifically?

College is very expensive, and it is hard to get a high paying job when you are a high school drop out living in a car.

So, to be hinest, it is hard to believe that you were able to get a job that paid well enough for you to raise a family and get a college education without even getting a federal student loan or any other benefits.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 03:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: College is very expensive, and it is hard to get a high paying job when you are a high school drop out living in a car.

So, to be hinest, it is hard to believe that you were able to get a job that paid well enough for you to raise a family and get a college education without even getting a federal student loan or any other benefits.

To give you the "short" version:

I was stupid in my youth.  Dropped out of school.  Wound up living in my car for a while.

Got two jobs.  One of those I'm still employed at.  Wound up finishing high school.  Work had a tuition reimbursement program.  I took advantage of it.  Took advantage of that and worked my way up the company ranks.  Work paid for my grad school in full on the condition that I signed a contract to stay on with the company for 5 years. 

I didn't take out one single student loan the entire time I was a student.  I worked full-time and went to school full-time.  It sucked, but not nearly as bad as going to school and graduating with no job and being saddled with debt.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 03:29 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Work had a tuition reimbursement program.  I took advantage of it.

And what is your answer to those who are not fortunate enough to work for one of the increasingly rare employers who offer such programs? Shrivel and die?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 03:39 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: And what is your answer to those who are not fortunate enough to work for one of the increasingly rare employers who offer such programs? Shrivel and die?

I think for one, if government is going to be in the student loan business, they should act like any other entity and determine whether they're making a sound investment.

Not everyone is college material.  The fact that government is involved with grants and financial aid and everyone likes the idea of being a college grad, creates situations where fly by night colleges pop up that aren't very good higher learning centers.  They are basically opportunists that are taking advantage of people who aren't good enough to get into a real school but like the idea of being a college grad...and of course taking advantage of government money like grants, financial aid, and the GI Bill. 

I'm not saying to get rid of those programs, but I think it's naive to let it continue where so many of these people graduate from these "colleges" and are often saddled with debt, unemployed or underemployed, and a lot of times their degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on. 

[*michaelsean*]

 

(09-08-2015, 02:29 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: It is true that it didn't take long for certain private property fetishists to adopt the phrase and completely change its meaning, but most of the world ignored it then and ignores it now, in much the same way it ignores North Korea when it calls its self a "democratic republic". "Libertarian" was most typically associated with some form or other of socialism, and outside of the U.S., that is still the case.

Where are you getting this?  Libertarianism was a movement of free will and self-determination, which is what the different branches had in common.  How to get there is where they differed.  There was no single one that others jumped on and changed.  

Private property fetishists?

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 03:51 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I think for one, if government is going to be in the student loan business, they should act like any other entity and determine whether they're making a sound investment.

Not everyone is college material.  The fact that government is involved with grants and financial aid and everyone likes the idea of being a college grad, creates situations where fly by night colleges pop up that aren't very good higher learning centers.  They are basically opportunists that are taking advantage of people who aren't good enough to get into a real school but like the idea of being a college grad...and of course taking advantage of government money like grants, financial aid, and the GI Bill. 

I'm not saying to get rid of those programs, but I think it's naive to let it continue where so many of these people graduate from these "colleges" and are often saddled with debt, unemployed or underemployed, and a lot of times their degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on. 

Well, I am definitely in favor of not offering federal aid to students of for-profit colleges (just like Obama). No reason why the government should be paying for an industry's profits, especially when, as you alluded, the academics are often not up to par with state (read: socialist) institutions of higher learning.

Two points re not everyone being college material:

1. FAFSA has GPA requirements. They can be appealed by demonstrating Satisfactory Academic Progress, but the fact is that students with bad grades can and do lose their aid.

2. I presume you are in favor of bringing manufacturing back and raising wages for manual laborers to a living one, then. Unless your stance is that people who aren't college material should not be able to support themselves even if they work full time; aka "shrivel and die".

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 04:06 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Well, I am definitely in favor of not offering federal aid to students of for-profit colleges (just like Obama). No reason why the government should be paying for an industry's profits, especially when, as you alluded, the academics are often not up to par with state (read: socialist) institutions of higher learning.

Two points re not everyone being college material:

1. FAFSA has GPA requirements. They can be appealed by demonstrating Satisfactory Academic Progress, but the fact is that students with bad grades can and do lose their aid.

2. I presume you are in favor of bringing manufacturing back and raising wages for manual laborers to a living one, then. Unless your stance is that people who aren't college material should not be able to support themselves even if they work full time; aka "shrivel and die".

Part of the problem in number 2 above is that unions played a part in the downfall of manufacturing in our country.  I don't really have that big of a problem with all unions, and believe that free people do have a right to collective bargaining if they choose, I also think that it's not just the evil corporations that are to blame here.

Paying someone a "living wage" is not nearly the same thing in China or Vietnam as it is here.  Labor costs a lot of money.  Not to mention other benefits, taxes, EPA regulations, and the like that play a part in manufacturing and other types of jobs choosing not to try here. 

I'm not even sure what the answer is really.  Technology plays a large part as well.  Think of how many jobs we've basically advanced ourselves out of due to advances in technology?  The internet, electronics, robotics, the list goes on and on. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 04:15 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Part of the problem in number 2 above is that unions played a part in the downfall of manufacturing in our country.  I don't really have that big of a problem with all unions, and believe that free people do have a right to collective bargaining if they choose, I also think that it's not just the evil corporations that are to blame here.

Paying someone a "living wage" is not nearly the same thing in China or Vietnam as it is here.  Labor costs a lot of money.  Not to mention other benefits, taxes, EPA regulations, and the like that play a part in manufacturing and other types of jobs choosing not to try here. 

I'm not even sure what the answer is really.  Technology plays a large part as well.  Think of how many jobs we've basically advanced ourselves out of due to advances in technology?  The internet, electronics, robotics, the list goes on and on. 

But blaming it on the unions is just a reversion to the problem that created unions. Should we have allowed manufacturers to get away with not paying their employees a living wage merely because some poor third world country would gladly allow their citizens to be worked to death for next to nothing? I don't believe so.

Nobody will pretend the problem isn't complicated. We are at a threshold in human advancement in which technology can now do a lot of the work for us; sooner than we realize, it may be able to do all of it.

The philosophical question during this transitional point in history is whether we decide to protect our own, or let them die off for not being mathematically or scientifically gifted enough to help us build this new society. My personal position is that just because somebody can't be an engineer, doctor or physicist doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to put a roof over their head and a shirt on their back.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2015, 03:51 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I think for one, if government is going to be in the student loan business, they should act like any other entity and determine whether they're making a sound investment.

Not everyone is college material.  The fact that government is involved with grants and financial aid and everyone likes the idea of being a college grad, creates situations where fly by night colleges pop up that aren't very good higher learning centers.  They are basically opportunists that are taking advantage of people who aren't good enough to get into a real school but like the idea of being a college grad...and of course taking advantage of government money like grants, financial aid, and the GI Bill. 

I'm not saying to get rid of those programs, but I think it's naive to let it continue where so many of these people graduate from these "colleges" and are often saddled with debt, unemployed or underemployed, and a lot of times their degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on. 

Well, even I can not deny that the injection of federally backed money into college education has maminly led to bloated prices with inflation rates twice that of the rest of the economy.

But we have to do all we can to advance education because the entire country benefits from a more educated work force.

My suggestion would be a slight reform.  I would focus the government back loans and grants into math, business, and sciences.  We need to do something to get more people in college becoming productive.

Also subsidize vocational schools more on both the high school and community college level.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 04:30 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: But blaming it on the unions is just a reversion to the problem that created unions. Should we have allowed manufacturers to get away with not paying their employees a living wage merely because some poor third world country would gladly allow their citizens to be worked to death for next to nothing? I don't believe so.

Nobody will pretend the problem isn't complicated. We are at a threshold in human advancement in which technology can now do a lot of the work for us; sooner than we realize, it may be able to do all of it.

The philosophical question during this transitional point in history is whether we decide to protect our own, or let them die off for not being mathematically or scientifically gifted enough to help us build this new society. My personal position is that just because somebody can't be an engineer, doctor or physicist doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to put a roof over their head and a shirt on their back.

Solid post.

While it may certainly go against my libertarian beliefs, I do think that government has to play a role here, although I would prefer they do it by offering solutions rather than handouts.  Most of the people in our government from either party in the last couple of decades (if not longer) are nothing more than corporatists. 

They'd have to be tough decisions, and wouldn't make us a lot of friends throughout the world.  Imagine telling China that were going to raise tariffs to such a high level that businesses want to move manufacturing back?  Offering tax breaks to businesses might offer some incentive, but they also interfere with the market too much IMO.  Why should company A get a great deal for bringing X number of jobs back here when company B has kept jobs here the whole time and gets nothing for it?

People are also greedy.  We say that we want good paying jobs here in America but then we flock to Walmart and IKEA and buy a bunch of cheap crap that was made in some impoverished country for pennies on the dollar. 

I'd personally be willing to spend more money on the same items even of the same quality if it helped get us back to being a manufacturing giant and put good people back to work with a decent job. 

I'm thinking out loud here.  Sorry for rambling on. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 04:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well, even I can not deny that the injection of federally backed money into college education has maminly led to bloated prices with inflation rates twice that of the rest of the economy.

But we have to do all we can to advance education because the entire country benefits from a more educated work force.

My suggestion would be a slight reform.  I would focus the government back loans and grants into math, business, and sciences.  We need to do something to get more people in college becoming productive.

Also subsidize vocational schools more on both the high school and community college level.

Mark it down on your calendar....the first time fred has agreed with me and vice-versa. 

Good post, fred.  

[fredtoast]

Wages in other countries will go up. People there will eventually realize that they deserve more than scraps for providing the labor necessary to drive multi billion dollar corporations. There will either be organized labor or a revolution against the governments.

People who think the world will move backwards are ignoring history.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 04:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wages in other countries will go up.  People there will eventually realize that they deserve more than scraps for providing the labor necessary to drive multi billion dollar corporations.  There will either be organized labor or a revolution against the governments.

People who think the world will move backwards are ignoring history.

I bet some of those people in those countries you speak of wish that they had a right to gun ownership.  

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2015, 04:45 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I bet some of those people in those countries you speak of wish that they had a right to gun ownership.  

I am sure they do.  

The right to gun ownership is so important that we have it in our Constitution.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 05:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am sure they do.  

The right to gun ownership is so important that we have it in our Constitution.

Agreed. 

Going up against an oppressive government military with slingshots and rocks doesn't offer very good odds.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2015, 05:57 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Agreed. 

Going up against an oppressive government military with slingshots and rocks doesn't offer very good odds.

If the government can convince the members of the military to turn on their own fellow citizens then the general population will not stand a chance no matter what weapons they let you own.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 06:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the government can convince the members of the military to turn on their own fellow citizens then the general population will not stand a chance no matter what weapons they let you own.  

Yeah, this is what I've never understood. I am not a "take away all their guns" person, but do these guys really think their rifles would stop an Abrams tank? A stealth bomber? F-16's? Or even just some soldiers in full armor? Just doesn't add up.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 06:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the government can convince the members of the military to turn on their own fellow citizens then the general population will not stand a chance no matter what weapons they let you own.  

Being a guy from a very large military family, I have a little more faith in our service men and women than you do.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 07:30 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Being a guy from a very large military family, I have a little more faith in our service men and women than you do.  

He didn't say that it would ever happen. He threw out a legitimate hypothetical, though: why do you think store bought guns could stop the government if they have the military? And if you're 100% sure the military would stand down no matter what for the citizens, why do we need guns at all?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 07:37 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: He didn't say that it would ever happen. He threw out a legitimate hypothetical, though: why do you think store bought guns could stop the government if they have the military? And if you're 100% sure the military would stand down no matter what for the citizens, why do we need guns at all?

There's no guarantee that ALL of the military would take the side of the citizens. 

Or what if some crazy Hitler type came into power and created his own military like the brown shirts of Nazi Germany?

Not saying that I think these things will happen, but we're playing hypotheticals here.