4 MORE YEARS OF CRAP, CASH FOR CLUNKERS IS BACK

[wessvobodas6]

Nov 27, 2012 13:33:23 GMT -5 derbythis said:

Nov 20, 2012 16:54:57 GMT -5 catscratch said:

Someone explain to me why we have to give tax incentives to the rich and "hope" they use it to create jobs. Why not give them great tax incentives AFTER they create long term/full time jobs? I've seen a lot of businesses spend a lot of money on stuff that didn't create jobs after a city gives them incentives to come to town and set up shop.

Define create jobs. Do you mean direct jobs or indirect jobs. As I tried to explain in my post on economy trickle down economics is exactly how it works and no one with common sense can explain it otherwise. In fact to explain it as money flows uphill would be defining a Ponzi scheme which is illegal. Any time a company comes in saying they are going to create x number of jobs you need to know direct or indirect. If they say they are going to create 500 jobs and they are only hiring 400 they are talking indirect. What this means is they are going to bring in x number more people which then means the local businesses are going to have to hire more staff in order to give the same service to the increased customers. This all trickles down to the lowest business. This is indirect. For direct they say we are going to bring in 500 more jobs and they hire 500. In reality with the way economics works they technically bring in on 500 jobs closer to 600-700 jobs locally but these are not necessarily high paying jobs or in many case not hired local positions. The amount of corporate tax a company pays directly reflects their willingness to enter an area. A great example right now is the Adobe Software building currently being constructed in Lehi, Utah. The state of Utah gave them incentive to come here. Is it the ideal place Adobe would like to be. My guess is they would rather be somewhere like Palo Alto, California. However due to the current economy in California and their tax the wealthy and corporations attitude they missed out on a great opportunity. I think they are talking about somewhere around 5000 jobs and given the size of the building I would say direct jobs. My guess is the best jobs will be people they bring in from outside that are currently employed by them. They will still however hire some for lack of a better term lower positions locally and the indirect influx of people at 5000 jobs will bring on a great number of indirect jobs. This is why government is and should be willing to work with corporations.

That is a very good, in-depth explanation. I'm not that smart, so I'll go with the common sense approach. If I have to keep paying a higher percentage of tax the more I make, it becomes pretty obvious that I dont want to make more. Hence, my business doesnt grow, hence I dont create more jobs. It's all about common sense folks. But again, it all goes back to my thought earlier on how you define "rich". Yes, there are many in this country that could give up 75% of what they have and probably not even notice. There lifestyle would not change. Those? I dont care of. My point refers to the commonly perceived rich. Your basic 250,000$+/year people. Those are the ones you do NOT want to truck with.

[jaygreen80]

Tax this tax that...you can increase the tax on the "richest" people in this country all you want and it's like shooting a BB gun at a tank...it isn't going to put a dent in anything. Spending cuts are the answer, but nobody wants to do that.

[derbythis]

Nov 29, 2012 13:53:28 GMT -5 jaygreen80 said:

Tax this tax that...you can increase the tax on the "richest" people in this country all you want and it's like shooting a BB gun at a tank...it isn't going to put a dent in anything. Spending cuts are the answer, but nobody wants to do that.

You hit the nail on the head with this post. If you have a few minutes take a look at this link www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview. This is the president's proposed budget. I can see a whole lot of cutting that could take place myself especially in the Department of State. When we are in a financial crisis why are we sending billions of dollars to Africa. Oh I forgot, the president needs to send money back to his actual place of birth.

[democrat]

Did you post this back in the 80s when Reagan tripled the national debt? Did you post this both Bushes raised the crap out of our debt? Or do you just post this when someone is in office that you dont like? Did you post this when Bush raised the amount of money given to foreign countries like Egypt and Isreal? Or do you just post this when someone is in office you dont like? Were you posting on here when Bush 2 was spending tens of billions on 2 wars no one wanted and he lied about? I really doubt you were. How much time a day do you spend trying to spin every single problem everywhere on the political party you dont agree with?

[crusher71]

WHO GIVES A poop WHEN OR WHAT HE POSTED, EVERY PRESIDENT HAS LIED TO US...PERIOD..........

[David Bryan]

Hello. Post this when Reagan......Really? Was the internet even invented then? Really? I am not sure he (derbythis) was even born then? It would be wonderful to have the national debt that Reagan had. We could actually pay that off. But to think of that, who was in charge of Congress during the Reagan years? Oh..... Now, I must write, we will NEVER be able to pay off the national debt. That is correct, NEVER. Obama wants to change America, he IS getting it done. Period. David Bryan

[derbythis]

Nov 29, 2012 19:18:44 GMT -5 democrat said:

Did you post this back in the 80s when Reagan tripled the national debt? Did you post this both Bushes raised the crap out of our debt? Or do you just post this when someone is in office that you dont like? Did you post this when Bush raised the amount of money given to foreign countries like Egypt and Isreal? Or do you just post this when someone is in office you dont like? Were you posting on here when Bush 2 was spending tens of billions on 2 wars no one wanted and he lied about? I really doubt you were. How much time a day do you spend trying to spin every single problem everywhere on the political party you dont agree with?

I am sorry but Al Gore had not invented the internet yet as well as home PCs frankly for many were unattainable until later. I was born in 1981 and I didn't really have political convictions until I turned 18 and was allowed to vote. The Internet really did not take off until the late 90's so the only one would have been able to be posted about was the last President Bush. Look at the National debt during times of war. It always increased. Reagan was fighting the Cold War with Russia and cut taxes. Of course the debt is going to go up. He was also fighting against Democrats wanting to not decrease spending on entitlements. I hate the term entitlements because the word signifies that something is owed. No one is owed anything in this country because they are out of work, have more kids than they can afford, get pregnant without being able to afford it, etc. Social Security and Medicare I am fine with calling entitlements as in most cases we are talking about Senior citizens that have worked and paid into the system and have earned it. You cannot have a surplus any time you spend more than you bring in. At the end of his presidency what was the National Credit Rating?

The same is true with George Bush. We were involved with Desert Storm another war. It was actually the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 put in place under George Bush that was part of the reason Clinton was successful in the the deficit. As I said earlier in this post the internet took off in the late 90's. This just so happened to be when Clinton was in office. What is known as the DotCom Bubble occurred at this time. This was a huge increase in income to the US Government due to increased jobs and more taxes from businesses. The big reason Clinton was successful was because of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 again which was enacted under President Bush and the Republican congress in power during Clinton forced the act to be followed. It was due to the huge income increase and congress forcing the budget to follow this act which created the surplus. Do you honestly think that if we had a different congress that did not hold the budget to this act we would have had a surplus. At the end of his presidency what was the National Credit Rating?

The second George Bush did put us in 1 unfunded war in 2 countries and I will acknowledge that. To say no one wanted them and he lied about them is an incorrect statement. How many people were wanting retribution after September 11, 2001. I would dare say the majority of the country was demanding we get those who did this to us. How did everyone want us to proceed then if the answer was not to declare war which actually requires an act by congress and was obtained by Bush unlike the current president who feels it is within his power to do so. Were we supposed to kindly send letters to the nations where these people live and nicely ask them to turn themselves in so we could imprison them. This war was different than any other war we have fought so far. In every war we have fought so far we have fought against an idea but it was an idea being forced upon a people by a specific group of people and tied to a geographic area. In this war we are not fighting a country or countries but an idea. The decision was made to go into countries where people with the ideology were being allowed to live. The only logical argument I can see that could be made was how these 2 countries were chosen and not someone like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, etc. It was not 2 wars as you propose the same way WW2 was not 3 wars even though we were fighting 3 different countries. It was declared as the war on terrorism not a war against Iraq or a war against Afghanistan. I will admit I don't think he did a good job at getting the country back in order after the attack and I disagree with the stimulus money as it did nothing more than increase the debt. As I said before I am not against the war in general but maybe in the way it was handled and where it was fought. At the end of his presidency what was the National Credit Rating?

You also make a great assumption that I am a Republican and try to spin things against the democrat party. You could not be further from the truth. I am an independent and vote who I feel is the best person for the job. I will admit I do tend to vote more Republican than Democrat but I have voted for and will continue to vote for Democrats if I feel they are the right person for the job. If you wanted to say I am anti Obama I will support you 100% in that statement. I don't recall any post where I blamed Democrats or spun anything against democrats. I may have questioned in some of my posts some of their ideas and what they stand for but I don't believe I have taken anything out of context. I do not spend hours everyday as well as you might think trying to spin things against the democrats. I can't see where I have questioned anything that takes hours of research. In all honesty it takes me longer to type responses than it does to research. All I ask is that you take a look at the numbers. Obama pulled us out of Iraq. By logic that would say according to you we are down to 1 war. Was the budget deficit reduced by the amount of fighting that war. The answer is no. Even though the money for the war is borrowed we see it as found money and spend it elsewhere. During Bush the debt raised from 35% to 40%. Since Obama took office that debt has risen to 62% of Gross Domestic Product. Our credit rating has been lowered which is the only time that has happened since the U.S. received a credit rating in 1917. Right now analysts are saying if things don't change it will be downgraded again within the next 2 years. You can blame the economy all you want for the debt increasing at the rate it has under Obama but the fact of the matter is this, in times when less tax money is coming in you can not raise the budget expenditures and expect the rate to decrease. Government should be no different than you or I. In times when the money coming in is less the amount you spend also needs to be less. I have no problem with taxing the wealthy if it actually meant something but you can't increase the income and increase the expenditures at the same time and expect change. A simple quote from management books and seminars is you cannot do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. To achieve different results you have to change the way you do things. Very simply what needs to happen is we need to decrease our spending and increase our income. Once income exceeds spending then the national debt can start to be paid off.

[democrat]

It appears you have some inaccuracies in your long statements. I really like how you spin the great economy of the 90s and credit Bush 1. History has proven that worn out theory wrong time and time again.

No poop David? The internet wasnt around in the 80s? You fail to see my point that people that get on here and blame the current party in control for the ills of the country never seem to look back and see we didnt get in this mess in 3.5 years. And alot of our problems came from the previous 32 years after Reagan changed our entire style of government, the same type of failing government that the GOP still strives to take us back too.

[derbythis]

Nov 30, 2012 16:07:49 GMT -5 democrat said:

It appears you have some inaccuracies in your long statements. I really like how you spin the great economy of the 90s and credit Bush 1. History has proven that worn out theory wrong time and time again.

No poop David? The internet wasnt around in the 80s? You fail to see my point that people that get on here and blame the current party in control for the ills of the country never seem to look back and see we didnt get in this mess in 3.5 years. And alot of our problems came from the previous 32 years after Reagan changed our entire style of government, the same type of failing government that the GOP still strives to take us back too.

I really would like an example from history where it shows that the economy gets better any time you spend more than you bring in as well as an example that shows that taxing the wealthy more creates jobs and strenghtens the economy. To that extent I will say good luck. It should be very easy for you though since it has been proven time and time again that this is the case and the opposite is wrong as you say. Below are some links to help you out to prove my case.

bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/projects/debt/budgetenforcementact.html

This is an article from UC-Berkley on the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. UC-Berkley was studied and was found to be almost 10:1 democrat vs republican. They acknowledge that many give credit of the Clinton Surplus to President Bush and as you read the article you will see that is where credit is due.

www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/three-economists-their-theories.html

Here is an article on economics from the 3 major players in economics. Please note the United States is not a true Capitalist society as we do have the Department of Labor, EPA, OSHA, and other regulation type departments that oversee and regulate to some extent business. Funny that you are arguing that a capitalist society which is what you are saying has been proven time and time again to be wrong is the only one proven to work. I would argue that between Bush 2 and Obama we have proven that Keynes principal does not work as the government spent tons of money and we are no better off today than we were before and I would also argue we are worse off as we have a huge national debt, lower credit rating, and are approaching a financial cliff. What we are discussing now with taxing the rich to give to the poor is a Marxist approach. I did not say communist but Marxist which is also akin to Socialism. What is being proposed is not a full out Marxist approach but is a great start towards it. This theory has been proven time and time again to not work with the biggest example being the former Soviet Union. This is similar to the story of Robin Hood which I grew up with. Take from the rich and give to the poor. The difference is if you really look at that story it wasn't take from the rich and give to the poor it was take from the government and give to the poor. The reason they were poor is the King (Obama) couldn't control his lavish spending and taxed the people to death. The same thing is happening now. It starts with the rich paying more money but that won't fill his appetite so it will be middle class people such as myself that will have to fulfill that burden. That is why we are approaching the financial cliff. There may be more to it that I don't know but what I am hearing from all the major new outlets is the Republicans won't agree to a tax increase without a cut in budget and the Democrats want a tax increase with no cuts and have actually proposed an increase. Somewhere there has to be a middle ground but neither party is willing to give. In my opinion both parties are acting childish and need to do what is best for the country. On this I tend to lean more to the Republican side as I can't see with the amount of debt we have accrued how someone could propose an increase in spending and an increase in taxes. I would feel even a little more comfortable with it if it came across as a flat budget with no change and an increase.

I actually have no problem with increasing taxes if I felt it would make a difference but as was said earlier it is like shooting a BB gun at a tank. To really make a difference my proposal would be to significantly cut spending and increase taxes across the board. The increase would not come from an actual increase but in my perfect world would be to remove all deductions and loopholes. It would be very close to an adjusted flat tax where it is still percentage based upon where your income fits but would eliminate the problem of the super rich being able to afford people to get them out of paying higher taxes and the poor collecting a tax return paycheck because they have 4 kids from 4 different dads and don't have a steady job but fill out a tax return. In all actuality if you did this you could probably reduce the percentage across the board as it would be a significant increase.

[democrat]

No one is raising taxes on the rich, that just isnt true. When the Bush tax cuts were voted in they had an end date. They were not meant to be permanent. The Democrats want to put them back to the pre tax cut level during the Clinton years. This is not actually raising their taxes, they are just letting them expire. The rich used to be taxed at over 80%. We had lower unemployment and a better economy and they were still rich. Those upper end taxes have decreased drastically over the past decades and where has the gotten us? Higher unemployment, lower standard of living and a worse economy for the middle. The argument that if you tax the rich more they will stop creating jobs is never been proven. Rich people hire people when they are needed. The rich have had it too good too long. I dont ever remembering my taxes being cut by one third over my lifetime.

And the "socialism" talk is about as old as the hills. This president hasnt done crap to make anyone think hes trying to make America a Socialist country. Hes not taking anyones money and giving it to anyone else. Income taxes have been around for 80 years. The government isnt buying businesses and making them state run. They arent controlling the media. They arent changing anything that wasnt there 3.5 years ago. Give this a rest. Even a socialist would laugh at that argument. And dont bring up the auto bailout and how the government owns GM. the Reagan administration bailed out Chrysler in the 80s and not one word was ever said about that. Obama hasnt raised income taxes on anyone, so saying hes taking from the rich to give to the poor is wrong. If the taxes go up on the rich, the poor arent gonna get a check just for being poor.

The financial cliff is both parties idealogy of different ways of thinking. Taxes ARE going up, expire, on the richest .7 percent of the economy. GOP wants deeper cuts in programs, Democrats dont want to cut that deep, but they are willing to take cuts, but not without the tax cuts expiring that 86% of Americans agree with. The GOP is protecting their base, white and wealthy, by refusing to let the tax cut expire. They are ignoring the wishes of 86%. If there is no agreement by the end of the year, all taxes return to clinton years. And thats not a bad thing. The bush tax cuts gave me about a Diet Coke a day in decreases. But gave millionaires tens of thousands of cuts. I will gladly pay for my own Diet Coke. Obama will then try to pass a permant lower tax rate for just the middle class. If the GOP doesnt vote for that, they have violated this sacred Norquist pledge. Obama has them by the balls, you will see them making a deal in the next couple weeks.

Without spending much time looking up facts, I believe that FDR spent a ton of money to bring the USA out of the Great Depression, and it was more then the Gov. was taking in. and he was called a fool and a socialist and you see how that turned out for him. One of the greatest presidents in history. And the economy was pushing forward very quickly before the war began.

[David Bryan]

Hello. Many, many points here. To many to cover. However, taxes WILL increase during Obama. Sure, he will spin this as Republicans did nothing and this increase is their fault. It would be wonderful to have the tax rates that were here during the Clinton years. It would be wonderful to then have the same SPENDING as Clinton had. Not going to happen, NEVER. The time is to late. Cliff? We are well over and picking up speed. Private insurance is done, even those companies know that. I do not think Obama can blame Bush at this point in time. Bush cut taxes. Taxes will increase during Obama's reign, I mean, term. Truth be known, Obama WANTS taxes to increase, on everyone, not just the "rich".

FDR one of the greatest presidents? Hardly! One of the worst.

democrat, you drink your koolaid, I will drink mine. Your America, and my America, must not be the same. David Bryan

[derbydummy]

Democrat , I don't have a need to argue much with people on the internet that don't know me , its pointless. No matter how much I plead my position , because you don't know MY position , it will fall upon deaf ears.
Your points have many flaws... Too many to point out. I am what I would consider a middle class American.. I was raised poor.. VERY POOR .. I wore my brothers hand me downs that was handed down.. If we didn't hunt for meat , we didn't eat meat. If it wasn't raised in the garden , that me and my brother pulled weeds and picked up rocks in ALL summer long ... We didn't eat it.. I remember getting a single football for Christmas one year.. And that was it.
My children have no clue what going without means.. Simply because I want my kids to have a little more than myself growing up.. BUT, I don't just give to my children... I make them earn it.. If they want , I make them work for it , or they don't get it.. And I hope that's instilling some valves in my kids... That is , If you want it , ya gotta work for it.
With all that said , MOST kids these days are raised , that if you don't have it , someone will hand it to you.. Mainly because they see their parents laying on their sorry azzes collecting some kind of government assistance. The culture we live in these days teaches our kids this mentality and that its ok..
I'll give an example ... My son started playing baseball several years ago on a T-ball league.. Little Johnny could swing as many times as he pleased until he hit the ball , if he hit the ball and scored a home-run .. They didn't keep score , because they didn't wanna hurt little bobby's feelings in case he was losing..I told my wife he wasn't playing for a team like this.. I made him finish his commitment and the following year he started playing for a travel league team where they keep score and the reality of dealing with losing was available.. Ya see in the game of life , your gonna lose , and ya need to know how to deal with it.. heck Ive derbied for 14 years and NEVER won.. I came ever so close , but it has escaped me.. LOL
What I have learned through life ... And this is important ..
If you give someone something once , the next time the same person thinks its owed to them.. And there is no bigger giver to the people that don't want to work for something than the democratic party..

[crusher71]

NEVER DEPEND ON ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING FOR YOU. THAT SUMS UP MY POLITICAL THEORY. AND, THEY ALL LIE.

[derbythis]

Nov 30, 2012 19:15:29 GMT -5 democrat said:

No one is raising taxes on the rich, that just isnt true. When the Bush tax cuts were voted in they had an end date. They were not meant to be permanent. The Democrats want to put them back to the pre tax cut level during the Clinton years. This is not actually raising their taxes, they are just letting them expire. The rich used to be taxed at over 80%. We had lower unemployment and a better economy and they were still rich. Those upper end taxes have decreased drastically over the past decades and where has the gotten us? Higher unemployment, lower standard of living and a worse economy for the middle. The argument that if you tax the rich more they will stop creating jobs is never been proven. Rich people hire people when they are needed. The rich have had it too good too long. I dont ever remembering my taxes being cut by one third over my lifetime.

And the "socialism" talk is about as old as the hills. This president hasnt done crap to make anyone think hes trying to make America a Socialist country. Hes not taking anyones money and giving it to anyone else. Income taxes have been around for 80 years. The government isnt buying businesses and making them state run. They arent controlling the media. They arent changing anything that wasnt there 3.5 years ago. Give this a rest. Even a socialist would laugh at that argument. And dont bring up the auto bailout and how the government owns GM. the Reagan administration bailed out Chrysler in the 80s and not one word was ever said about that. Obama hasnt raised income taxes on anyone, so saying hes taking from the rich to give to the poor is wrong. If the taxes go up on the rich, the poor arent gonna get a check just for being poor.

The financial cliff is both parties idealogy of different ways of thinking. Taxes ARE going up, expire, on the richest .7 percent of the economy. GOP wants deeper cuts in programs, Democrats dont want to cut that deep, but they are willing to take cuts, but not without the tax cuts expiring that 86% of Americans agree with. The GOP is protecting their base, white and wealthy, by refusing to let the tax cut expire. They are ignoring the wishes of 86%. If there is no agreement by the end of the year, all taxes return to clinton years. And thats not a bad thing. The bush tax cuts gave me about a Diet Coke a day in decreases. But gave millionaires tens of thousands of cuts. I will gladly pay for my own Diet Coke. Obama will then try to pass a permant lower tax rate for just the middle class. If the GOP doesnt vote for that, they have violated this sacred Norquist pledge. Obama has them by the balls, you will see them making a deal in the next couple weeks.

Without spending much time looking up facts, I believe that FDR spent a ton of money to bring the USA out of the Great Depression, and it was more then the Gov. was taking in. and he was called a fool and a socialist and you see how that turned out for him. One of the greatest presidents in history. And the economy was pushing forward very quickly before the war began.

On your first point if all of the tax breaks are not revoked and we say certain individuals are going to pay more based upon income then yes it is a tax increase. It may just be the retirement of tax cuts but if it is not an across the board thing it is in fact a tax increase because you are raising the taxes on a specified set of people. It is not a repeal of the tax breaks given at this point because what is being said is we are keeping the tax breaks for everyone except a certain group. Regardless of the method it occurs any time you are asked to pay a higher percent in taxes compared to the previous year it is a tax increase. I also don't ever recall where you were paying 90%, which is the highest the wealthy have paid, of your income in taxes to deserve a 1/3 cut over your lifetime.

I guess you do not differentiate Socialism and Communism. They are in fact 2 different things. Your attitude is Socialist with the idea the rich have had it too good for too long and need to pay more. Socialism is an economic principle of redistribution of wealth. Communism is a type of government in which the "state" owns everything and distributes the money based upon what it feels is appropriate. While in most cases the two are directly correlated it does not have to be the case. You could have a capitalism in a Communist country with the benefactor being the country as the business owner. You can have socialism in a Democracy. America is more socialist than you think and yes Obama has pushed it more this way. First he extended unemployment far beyond what it was before. This is redistributing the wealth of those working to those not working. Second he has increased entitlements again taking from those working to give to those who are not working or are not working in decent paying jobs. Again this is a redistribution. The idea of taxes in general besides paying for the day to day operations of government are socialist. It is taking from those who are earning a living and giving to others that are not what is felt to be in the same bracket. Also your point is entirely incorrect on the poor getting a check. The problem is the poor are already getting that check . It is called Welfare, Government Subsidized Housing, Food Stamps, WIC, Extended Unemployment, etc. The problem is we don't have the money to pay for it so the idea to pay for it is tax the wealthy. It was not proposed how can we get rid of the problem it is how can we band-aid it. It is entirely a redistribution of wealth as it is taking from those who have to give to those who don't. I am a very charitable person and I do give to charities. The problem is if you have never been to the "ghetto" you have no clue how this all works. I have spent time there and have seen first hand and talked with those in this situation and know the way government assistance works.

The financial cliff is going to happen and taxes are going to go up on everyone. Obama does not have them in any sort of position as the Norquist Pledge is they will not raise taxes on anyone. They have said if the entire Bush tax cuts are taken away then that does not go against the pledge but to remove a portion of them is a tax increase. In fact the Norquist Pledge says nothing about reducing taxes just about increasing taxes. How can you say Obama is willing to cut when the budget has gone up. He is not willing to cut. He just wants the wealthy to pay more. The problem is if you look at it the amount that it will raise is nothing close to the amount he is over spending.

I think you may want to look up some facts on FDR. You are entirely incorrect. His economic principles (The New Deal) actually made the country worse. It wasn't until WW2 that we saw a change in the economy and it was not until a little bit into the war that the economy improved as The New Deal hurt the economy so badly it took a few years of the war to fix the results. The country bounced back from The Great Depression but I give the credit to Japan for attacking us otherwise we would have never entered the war and bounced back from failed economic ideas.

You can blame the wealthy all you want for the woes of the Middle Class and the Poor but they are in their predicament because of their choices. If you choose to not graduate from high school, get a college degree in a good field, or any other thing that results in holding you back you have no one to blame but yourself. Most of the wealthy did not get that way by being lazy or sitting back waiting for the wealthy to take care of them. They for the most part are doers. They don't watch the clock to make sure they only put in 40 hours and not a second more. A college education is not out of reach for anyone who wants to work for it. A great example is myself. My parents did not put me through college I did. I did accept financial assistance the last year I was there which I probably could have done without but if it is there why not use it. I paid my rent, tuition, books, utilities, food, etc. out of my pocket. I was able to do this because I was willing to work. During high school I worked the maximum amount allowed by law at minimum wage. I was a valued employee so they allowed me to work Friday nights and weekends while I was in school. I soon found a job closer to school and was taking 18 credit hours and working 30+ hours a week. My last semester I was still working 30 hours a week and was taking 21 credit hours. Was this easy for me to do. Absolutely not. Did my parents pay for me to go. Absolutely not. Did I just not go because my parents made too much money and I didn't qualify for financial aid. Absolutely not. I do have the dream someday to be wealthy but I am the one holding me back because I made the choice to work where I did and haven't stepped out of that.

[jeremybailey13]