Here is a question for the left wing college elite

On the contrary.
I supplied the requested "reliable links' to support every claim I made, which disproved your claims.
Upon doing so, you refused to accept the fact I was right and you were wrong.
That is, this is the EIGHTEENTH cycle of this bickering because of your "insistence on being childish" - your words - and choosing to be wrong.

Your unsupportable opinion does not hold water, given the "reliable links" to the actual definition of "entitlement" that proves otherwise.

Asks he who has not posted a single "reliable link" to support his position.

 

I accept your concession of all the points made.

 

The fund is simply an account of the federal governnent. An investor cannot simultaneously be the issuer and purchaser of the same debt. Sophomoric logic lapped up by sophomoric citizens

 

i assume you mean the S.S. Trust Fund.

-for the payments into the program by those who will benefit from the program.

They're not the same. The "investors" are workers who pay into it. Those who issue/sell the debt instruments is the government Treasury Department. The Treasury Department is not the purchaser of the debt. The Trust Fund Trustees are.

You're like Tog. You're trying your best to derail a conversation by insisting on a bogus assertion.

 

Just like tax payers pay into the general fund. It all belongs to uncle Sam
Gulp!

 

Yes.

Clinton pointed this out in her campaign.

She pointed out that we need paths both for college and non-college directions. Bernie Sanders made this a key issue, too.

In NO WAY did they suggest that those without college degrees are worthless. The problem is quite different. The problem has more to do with the rate of change in our economy. Your manufacturing job is likely to evaporate within your working years, the jobs that are well paid and dependable are moving toward requiring more education and training, etc.

Obviously, your comparison is TOTALLY bogus. But, it does point out that we need a variety of education paths.

The one direction that is NOT acceptable is the current one of making college more exclusive - such as focused on those who have rich parents, for one example.

 

here's a path, study when you're in school, get good grades.
Bet you never thought of that.

 

I saw plenty when I did a google search and any protest that results in violence, flames and destruction of property is a riot not a protest. Here is one but you won't like the site reporting it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-questioned-over-ties-to-extremist-group.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446810/berkeley-riot-leftist-mob-violence-undermines-rule-law
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-t...-justice-left-and-campus-apologizes-for-riot/

If you think these are just protests then protest have changed a lot since the '70s when girls were placing flowers in the barrels of the national guards rifles.

 

There were plenty of violent protests in the 70s and the 200 years prior to that. Let's not pretend like this is some new phenomenon. Here is a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...unrest_in_the_United_States#1970.E2.80.931979

I don't see any mention of a student being arrested or students being involved though. Berkeley is a large city in a hugely populous area. You seem to be blaming this on the students, but I don't see any evidence of that.

 

The second link answers in part why you can't see any arrests. What ever happened to the home of free speech.

"At Berkeley, a mob blocked Milo Yiannopolous from speaking, before going on a violent rampage that included arson, smashed windows, and assault on innocent bystanders. Americans were pepper-sprayed and beaten for the “crime” of supporting Donald Trump while the police stood idly by, letting the riot play out before arresting a grand total of one person."

 

The problem I see is we as Americans should be able to disagree peacefully. What ever happened to the adage "I might disagree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?

 

So at best you've got no evidence. A plausible excuse for not having any evidence, but nonetheless nothing proving this was done by students. I would argue that the top public school in the US probably doesn't have a lot of students who go around committing violent acts. That's not to say there are none. I just can't imagine it's more that a small number of the protesters.

 

This is true. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Only 3% of all US businesses are publicly traded corporations.

 

Well I guess you didn't read any of the links, granted outside agitation is responsible for most riots but to say no students were involved is just wrong. They protest and shout down anyone who has a differing opinion when they come to speak on their campus. I believe we are witnessing the death of free speech and it is not being taken away by government but being forced away by protesters who don't want to hear anything but their own ideas.

 

I'm not saying no students were involved, but unless there is evidence to the contrary it appears that these were the actions of outside groups like you said.

I think you are giving these people way to much credit. They represent a minority at most and while they are loud they are pretty bad at getting real political action done. See occupy movement for example.

 

Utterly meaningless out of context statistic.

 

All primary mortgage loans are accompanied with PMI until you owe less than 80% of what the home is worth.
Property and housing in the US was considered a VERY solid investment. Home values had ALWAYS risen.
A good credit score could get one a ridiculous line of unsecured credit. People exhausted those accounts and defaulted on credit cards, then home equity loans, then housing values plummeted.
Tell me about paying PMI. What were interest rates in 2000 vs now?

 

Latin is a dead language with some remnants. Latin is not the language of any contemporary culture.

 

Thanks, captain obvious! Having marketable and desired skills increases the likelihood you will find a decent paying job. The more demand for the skill set or rarity of those with them, the better your odds. In economics this phenomenon is referred to as supply and demand.

 

The predatory subprime lenders got around the PMI requirement by issuing 2nd subprime mortgages to cover the 20% shortfall. It was all just a Wall Street Casino PONZI scam made possible by Republican DEREGULATIONS.

 

I notice you didn't answer any of my questions.
Tell me about paying PMI. What were interest rates in 2000 vs now?
Preditory? The loans you are referring to were mostly zero down loans. Those who walked away from the homes they couldn't afford had absolutely no investment or equity. They lost nothing.
Years ago in the US the standard down payment on a home was 20%. The biyers had equity from day one. They also had a considerable investment. They were far less likely to default than a buyer who put 0 down and is 6 months into a 30 year loan. Then throw in overnight depreciation, the buyer would be a financial idiot to stay.
Don't forget my questions

 

Latin is used in both law and medicine. It is one of the root languages and you would be surprised how many of the words you use on a daily basis have latin roots.

Let me illustrate with the SENtence "do you have the BENEfit of an AUTOmatic transMISsion in your car or is it a MANual instead?"

Here is a list and you can see how many of the words you use on a daily basis that have latin roots.

https://www.thoughtco.com/common-word-roots-in-english-1692793

English adapts all the time and since Latin is part of English it is still alive even if it isn't all that obvious.

 

Before we go any further do you understand what the terms "predatory lending" and "toxic loans" mean?

Those lenders KNEW that they were issuing mortgages to people who were UNQUALIFIED! They KNEW that they would DEFAULT on the very FIRST PAYMENT DUE! They didn't care because they weren't going to hold on to those toxic loans. They were going to let the Wall Street Casino bundle them up and sell them off as AAA rated securities when they knew that they contained toxic subprime predatory mortgages that would cause the market to crash which is why they insured themselves against the market crash!

It was one massive SCAM and it was made possible by Republican DEREGULATION that allowed these lenders to make these predatory loans to unqualified buyers without PMI and without any income and without any assets.

It didn't matter what the PMI rate was or what the standard deposit amount was or what equity was available. All that mattered was having someone to sign the paperwork on the subprime mortgages so that the scam could take the investors money to cover these toxic loans and the Wall Street Casino Bosses could stripmine the home equity wealth out of middle class America without having to worry about being caught.

 

Thank you for the examples of Latin remnants. Of course ancient languages influenced those that followed.
Latin is still a dead language spoken by no contemporary culture.