One Trillion Dollars in student loan debt - only exists because liberals subsidize education while still allowing them to charge foreign students four times the price, to take away your slots, too! Yay Free Stuff! If they had to charge you competitive market prices, your education costs would drop to almost zero!
HEY, KIDS!
When libertine "liberal" criminal politicians promise you endless "YAY FREE STUFF!" they are really trying to bribe you with your own money (while keeping a large chunk of it for them selves, allegedly as manager fees).
But, "NO!" you'll say; "They're really only bribing me with my PARENTS' money! Which is great because those stingy bastards won't die already and cough up what they owe me!"
Well ... WRONG AGAIN, Junior! What they're doing is looting YOUR inheritance, and because you're too scared of working for your self, you're letting them! (And even worse than your parents, they charge you more than half, just to "manage" it "for" you)!
And why is that? Because your parents are so much smarter and better able to earn money than you are? To which you'd reply:
"No, of course not! They're idiots! Obviously! But they're just lucky they grew up when there were more jobs around to have!"
Wrong again! They felt the same way as you do, about how lucky their own parents were. But, here's the thing: There were always more jobs in the past (except maybe during the Great Depression) ... until the working generations' kids ... voted liberal.
Then (spend and tax) there were less jobs available, but *therefore* also a lot more welfare and "YAY FREE STUFF!" available.
Then THEIR kids grew up (physically, anyway) and voted liberal. Rinse and repeat, and here you are now, about to make the exact same mistake as your recent ancestors and dumbass parents did, too. Does that make you FEEL proud, or want to THINK for your selves?
More, from here:
Why Kids Are Socialists and How to Start Fixing It
Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel,
"You may be happy with the state of the U.S. economy, but many young people aren’t. And as a result, a lot of them are embracing political extremism.
A recent poll by YouGov finds that half of all millennials — and even more of the generation that follows them — distrust capitalism. Seventy percent of millennials say they’d be willing to vote for a socialist. If you’re not shocked by this, it’s only because you’ve seen it before. But it ought to scare you.
It’s taken us almost 250 years to build this country, and we could wreck it in a single generation. At this rate, we will. In order to prevent the looming disaster, we need to be clear on what has gone wrong.
You often hear it said that young people support socialism because they’ve been brainwashed by their professors. There’s some truth to that, of course, but it’s not the main problem. The main problem — the reason capitalism is increasingly discredited and socialism increasingly popular — is that for too many young people, our current system isn’t working.
“Go to college,” we tell them. “You’ll be successful if you do.” But too often, that advice is outdated, if not an utter lie.
Many of our kids wind up impoverished by the experience, their dreams thwarted forever.
The reason is debt. Forty-five million Americans now labor under student loans. The average debt burden is $37,000. For professional degrees, it’s far more. The average law school grad carries more than $110,000 in student loan debt. For new doctors, the burden is nearly $200,000. Overall, 2 million Americans owe more than $100,000 each in student loans. Imagine starting your first job with that hanging over you.
Keep in mind, college debt isn’t like ordinary debt. Thanks to a well-funded lobbying campaign, student loans can’t be erased by bankruptcy. They last forever. Many of today’s college freshmen can expect to spend their working lives paying interest on loans that, in the end, didn’t help them at all.
No wonder young people aren’t getting married, buying homes or having children. They can’t afford to. No wonder so many support Bernie Sanders. If this is capitalism, they don’t want any part of it.
The irony, of course, is that the only people benefiting from this system are on the far left: college presidents with multimillion-dollar salaries, highly paid university administrators and tenured professors of non-binary feminist poetry and other perverse and pointless academic “disciplines.”
As a group, these are, without question, some of the least impressive people in our country. Yet they’re the only ones coming out ahead in the deal. They’re feasting on our children’s debt and on the generous subsidies taxpayers provide for higher education in America.
An entire generation of Americans is enslaved to interest payments so that some left-wing academics can have lifetime employment making our country worse. That’s the arrangement.
And for the rest of us, socialism. That’s what we’re going to get out of it.
There’s got to be a better way. Some on the left have proposed forgiving student debt entirely, which is to say sticking American taxpayers with the bill. If there’s one thing that could make this terrible situation worse, it’s that.
Taxpayers didn’t cause this problem. They shouldn’t be punished any more than they already have been.
The corrupt higher education establishment concocted this scam. They spend tons of money lobbying in Washington to keep it going. They should now pay to fix it. Harvard’s endowment is $40 billion. Yale’s is $30 billion. Let’s start there.
These massive endowment funds are built tax-free, meaning they’re subsidized by average American taxpayers. To make matters worse, the universities often aren’t even using these endowments to help their students. They keep building larger and larger endowments, essentially for bragging rights. Most tax-free foundations are required to pay out 5% of their total funds each year for charitable activities. That’s how they justify the tax-free treatment.
And who’s exempt from this? Universities. They just grow the money with no requirement that they ever help a single student.
How can anyone justify this? How does this make sense? Congress could easily pass a law to make universities pay down 5% of their endowments per year like every other nonprofit foundation is required to. Who would be against that? Only the higher education lobbyists who spend millions every year protecting this insane system.
We need to move the crushing financial burden of student debt off the shoulders of middle-class families and 22-year-olds and back onto the people who’ve gotten rich from it. That’s an idea every sensible person can support. And there’s a political payoff for any politician wise enough to adopt it."
=======
Now, let's see what other huge lying sack-of-shit scams the liberal criminals are trying to sucker you into agreeing to and voting for:
1.) "Income Disparity!"
================
= "Your greedy rich parents took all the money, so there will be none left for you to inherit!
So help us to help you to steal it back!"
BUT IN REALITY:
We've all seen entire pages (and/or entire books, even!) of libtarded articles spew forth whining victimology drek devoted to "Inequality" (of outcome, as opposed to inequality of opportunity).
Oh yeah; - "oh the tragedy, oh the humanity." But let's try this simple thought experiment out:
I see a guy who starts a company, employs say 100 people with low but decent salaries of say $50,000. each.
He gives him self a yearly salary of $100,000 for his troubles. So he's "1%" of his 100 workers, with double their income.
So he's getting TWICE their salaries! (And he doesn't even work with his hands at all)! "HOLYSHIT!" That's Not Fair - is it?! - liberals ask.
After a bit, he starts up a second, equally-successful company, so now he employs 200 people, and takes in $200,000 for him self.
"But wait!" The criminals moan - that's "Not Fair!" because now he's getting FOUR times their salaries! His income just DOUBLED, while theirs remained the exact same! And he's also just made him self part of the wealthier "0.5%!"
Holy crap, the liberals start losing their minds! "Not fair! Not Fair!! NOT FAIR!!!"
Sure, the guy's efforts have doubled the economy, and now twice as many people can feed their families, but the "gap" between the evil capitalist and his 'slave' workers has doubled! They didn't get any raises at all, the poor exploited dumb brutes, the extortive liberal victimologists moan!
Then he does it again (the greedy bastard)! He made yet another successful company and now employs 300 people! "But" they bitch, "while the workers still 'only' get $50,000 p/a each, the evil rich capitalist now makes almost a third of a million dollars a year! Holy shit - he's making SIX times what they make, and his worth just went up another 50% - AGAIN!"
Their salaries didn't go up AT ALL! "So, quick! We must rob and exile him and "redistribute" his bloated salary among the poor enslaved perpetually downtrodden working-man labor class at once!" they insist.
That way, they will each get a quick 2% raise at last! Of course, they will also then just as quickly lose their jobs and all have to go on welfare, because that rich capitalist traitor just sold his infrastructure and took all the jobs overseas, but hey - that's what "the government" (everybody else who works and pays taxes) is for - to subsidize libertine whiners - amiright!?
MORONS!
2.) "Voting Reform/Proportional Representation!"
=========================================
= "Vote to help us rob your greedy rich parents (of YOUR inheritance)
so we can give you back some of it now to fritter away! Whee!"
BUT IN REALITY:
HERE'S HOW & WHY "PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION" IS VOTE-THEFT:
Here's both how and why this falsely-named and entirely hypocritical "FAIR VOTE CANADA!" Libetrayal PAC is anything BUT "Fair!"
"Proportional" representation really only means stealing votes from one riding to bolster party status in others, in order to form a "politicians' union" and enshrine political parties, not individual citizen voters, as the main arbiters of our laws.
It dilutes your votes and renders them worthless. People are supposed to vote for their LOCAL representatives, to represent their localities - because traditionally, that's where the citizens' jobs and families and homes are located. "Proportional" voting is for parties over people - for political party idols over real live human individuals.
Let's dummy this down to its most absolute basic, binary principle, to see how it works:
Let's imagine that we have only two main political parties, and only two political ridings next to each other.
They each have the exact same population/number of voters; for convenience' sake, let's make it an even 100 voters per riding.
In the first one, the main employer is a large globalist corporation which only exists because of government tax grants.
Let's call it "SNC Liberalin."
In the second riding, there are only a few government bailouts, but most people work for small, unassociated private companies.
In the election, the first riding votes 99% Liberal (quel surprise) while the second riding votes 51% Conservative.
Under the current and traditional, status-quo first-past-the-post (one person, one vote) system we have now, the people have just elected one Liberal, and one Conservative, to represent them in Parliament. Seems fair, no?
But under "proportional" representation, those votes get added together, then divided ('averaged') such that we get a grand total of 148 votes for the Liberals, and 52 votes for the Conservatives - averaged (added, then divided into 2) that means we end up with 74% voting Liberal, and only 26% voting Conservative.
Therefore the Liberal Party gets another representative in Parliament, so now there's 2 Liberal MPs and only 1 Conservative one.
This is, of course, what the Liberals call "Fair!" while in the past, "one person, one vote," they called "Unfair! Not Fair!"
(And, of course, after Trudeau's crushing majority win last time, there was obviously no way the hypocrite would want to dilute his votes by mixing and matching riding votes in this proposed manner, which is why he reneged on his promise to do so).
Get it, yet?
;-)The bottom line is: No matter who you think benefits most from party-directed government largesse - poor areas or the largest political-donor mega-corporations, like the Liberal Party's SNC Lavalin globalist "Quebec" engineering firm - the so-called "Mixed: Member-Proportional (MMP)" voting reform system allows the politicians, not voters, to skew their votes and enshrine a perpetual self-perpetrating politicians' union into our laws, while 'ranked' voting merely enshrines "Free Stuff!" tax-looting.
The traditional "First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) voting system is "One Person, One Vote;" and it can't get any more fair than that!
(CAPISCE?)!
FURTHERMORE:
People who want to "reform" (change) our traditional First-Past-The-Post, one person/one vote system, whine:
"The ruling party only got 40% of the total vote!
That means 60% voted against them!
That's not fair!"
This is a standard statistical distraction tactic which is always used by liberals; don't fall for it!
Say it goes like this:
40 % Conservatives
30 % Liberals
20 % Outright Commies
10% all others (fringe parties/flakes).
=100 %
OK, so the vote is to hire ('elect') ONE representative, who "only" got 40 % of the votes (because we, as the 'companys' owners' decided she was the most qualified of the 4 job-applicants).
There was only the one job opening, so it also doesn't mean anybody owes the losers any second-place jobs!
Also, although overall the winners DIDN'T get the WHOLE other 60 % of the vote, it doesn't mean ALL those nay-sayers and dissenters voted against them, either.
In fact, it also really only means that, although 60 % of the people didn't vote for the winner, nevertheless, a full 70, 80, and 90 % of the people also didn't vote for the other (losing) candidates, respectively, either!
It also means that, contrary to often-butthurt liberal propaganda hyperbole, which falsely extrapolates that "It's Not Fair, because the other 60% voted AGAINST the winner!" what really happened is they divided their votes by voting FOR whomever they chose as the best candidates and parties.
Had they really wanted to vote AGAINST the eventual winner, they would have voted strategically FOR the most likely (and least disliked) other major party as their only real option to defeat the winners.
So, once again: it can't get any more 'fair,' than:
"One Person, One Vote!"
No comments:
Post a Comment