[Samirol]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/nyregion/24starbucks.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

A National Labor Relations Board judge ruled on Tuesday that Starbucks had illegally fired three baristas and otherwise violated federal labor laws in seeking to beat back unionization efforts at several of its Manhattan cafes.

The administrative law judge, Mindy E. Landow, found that Starbucks had also broken the law by issuing negative job evaluations to union supporters and prohibiting employees from discussing the union even though the employees were allowed to discuss other subjects not related to work.

“The judge’s ruling shows that this company has trampled on workers’ rights to organize a labor union,” said one of the fired baristas, Daniel Gross, who is a longtime leader of the effort by the Industrial Workers of the World to unionize Starbucks workers in New York, Minnesota, Michigan and other states.

Judge Landow ordered that Mr. Gross and the two other baristas be reinstated to their jobs and receive back wages. She also ordered Starbucks to pledge to end what she said was discriminatory treatment toward workers who supported the union at four of its Manhattan shops: 200 Madison Avenue at 36th Street, 145 Second Avenue at 9th Street, 15 Union Square East and 116 East 57th Street.

Starbucks was quick to voice its dismay with the ruling.

“While we respect the N.L.R.B. process, we’re disappointed with the decision, and we intend to appeal it to the next stage in the process,” said Tara Darrow, a spokeswoman for Starbucks. She said the company was disappointed that the decision did not take into consideration what she said where personal threats lodged against managers.

Ms. Darrow said the company was proud of its tradition of communicating with its employees directly, and not through a union. “We believe that at the end of this, our policies and approach will be deemed fair and consistent.”

The judge’s ruling grows out of charges that the labor board’s Manhattan office brought against Starbucks in April 2007.

In March 2006, Starbucks reached a settlement with the union, agreeing to pay $2,000 in back pay and reinstating two other New York baristas who the labor board said had been fired illegally as part of an effort to quash unionization. Judge Landow ruled against Starbucks on most issues, finding that its managers had improperly barred employees from wearing more than one pro-union button and had illegally prohibited workers at its Union Square East store from posting union items on a company bulletin board.

The judge also ruled that a Starbucks manager had illegally prohibited employees from talking about wages and other terms of employment.

But the judge found that Starbucks managers did not improperly discriminate when they prohibited two union supporters from wearing what the managers said were overly obtrusive necklaces.

The 88-page ruling describes a bitter and escalating battle between Starbucks and the union since it began its organizing drive in 2004. The union has repeatedly sought to pressure Starbucks, demonstrating outside shops and handing petitions to management demanding improvements in working conditions.

The company asserted that the fired employees were terminated for legitimate reasons, including insubordination, disrespectful conduct, using profane language and poor work performance. But Judge Landow found that the three fired employees — Mr. Gross, Joe Agins Jr. and Isis Saenz — were fired because of their pro-union activities.

Judge Landow’s decision noted that Starbucks tried to keep close track of union supporters, going so far as to disseminate “what information it received regarding off-duty employee gatherings, such as parties, where recruiting was suspected.”

“This decision conclusively establishes Starbucks’ animosity toward labor organizing,” said Stuart Lichten, a lawyer for the union. “For the first time, a judge has confirmed the existence of a nationally coordinated antiunion operation at Starbucks.”

This is fantastic news, I'm glad to see that the IWW is gaining ground in its campaign to unionize Starbucks.

 

[TheMontashu]

Good to hear. Good thing I have friends that work there and I never have to pay for drinks there.


On a side note, starbucks talks a big game about fair trade coffee, you have to ask for it special and its like 25 cents more or something

 

[ire]

and its like 25 cents more or something

That's because they had to pay more for the coffee in the "fair trade". I hate Starbucks and I don't patronize their stores

 

[$tinkle]

about this whole "fair trade" thing.

sounds good in practice, but who are you helping when you choose based upon fair trade? your choices are usually not as vast as a traditional roaster/distributor/beans, which means you're putting the hurt on the local economy (in the same numbers you'd supposedly be helping the juan valdez's of the world). wouldn't a more effective way to help out mom & pops in relatively impoverished areas be to give to a focused charity in that region?

full disclosure: i've been rocking some fair trade screaming monkey for the past week, as my neighbor runs a local roaster.

it ain't burnt like that starbux schyte

 

[Transcend]

Starbucks is gross, but unions are more disgusting.

 

[Samirol]

Fair trade coffee is a misnomer designed to make leftists feel more comfortable about their coffee, but it doesn't help most impoverished growers and is a really flawed system.

Transcend, the IWW is a small union, it isn't a big bureaucracy at all. They are all about being a democratically run union that isn't about a few at the top getting a nice budget, but getting workplace democracy and good treatment.

 

[Defenestrated]

I'm with Transcend on this one and wish starbucks the best of luck in mercilessly crushing the union threat.

 

[TheMontashu]

I'm with Transcend on this one and wish starbucks the best of luck in mercilessly crushing the union threat.

You and transcend can have fun being worked to oblivion so rich people can have more money (that at some point they cant even actually spend)

 

[Samirol]

You and transcend can have fun being worked to oblivion so rich people can have more money (that at some point they cant even actually spend)

Defenestrated is kidding

 

[Serial Midget]

Starbucks is fun to hate, their stock is in the gutter as well. MEH...

 

[stevew]

Good to hear. Good thing I have friends that work there and I never have to pay for drinks there.

penny pincher.

 

[stoney]

You and transcend can have fun being worked to oblivion so rich people can have more money (that at some point they cant even actually spend)

Be careful little socialist boy, the world is going to get you when you grow up.

 

[TheMontashu]

Be careful little socialist boy, the world is going to get you when you grow up.

For 1 I am not REALLY a socialist, I avidly support unions, social medicine, free education, and much higher taxation for the rich. I also understand socialisms lack of incentives for hard work and lack of ability to provide goods and services. What we need is a much more highly controlled market system, one that encourages domestic industry and exports rather than imports.

And I'm looking at transferring to UC Berkeley next year, so I plan on playing the current system to make myself comfortable.

 

[stoney]

...um...adding regulation to the market is a necessary at this point. All the other stuff... Unions are bringing down the auto industry, they disincentivize hard work. Social medicine? Yeah, we'll definately get the best docs that way. Low income definately makes up for 10yrs of schooling. Free education? How about actually educating our students so that by the time they hit college, they are functional adults? highschool graduates know less today than 20 years ago. Highschool level knowledge in the 60's is on par with undergrad today.
Higher taxation on the rich? Maybe on income, but if I save every penny I make from just out of school, make a few good trades, and end up with a few million in the bank, why do I have to pay taxes on my wealth? It was accrued through frugality and hard work. Why should I share that AND my income with those unwilling to work? (Not the unable, un-WILLING; obesity and obesity related diseases fall under unwilling. You have to try to hate yourself enough to not be able to work because you are so fat)

 

[TheMontashu]

...um...adding regulation to the market is a necessary at this point. All the other stuff... Unions are bringing down the auto industry, they disincentivize hard work. Social medicine? Yeah, we'll definately get the best docs that way. Low income definately makes up for 10yrs of schooling. Free education? How about actually educating our students so that by the time they hit college, they are functional adults? highschool graduates know less today than 20 years ago. Highschool level knowledge in the 60's is on par with undergrad today.
Higher taxation on the rich? Maybe on income, but if I save every penny I make from just out of school, make a few good trades, and end up with a few million in the bank, why do I have to pay taxes on my wealth? It was accrued through frugality and hard work. Why should I share that AND my income with those unwilling to work? (Not the unable, un-WILLING; obesity and obesity related diseases fall under unwilling. You have to try to hate yourself enough to not be able to work because you are so fat)

I'm not saying unions are perfect, I do agree that people still need to be accountable for the work they do, but blaming the auto union for all this is absolutely stupid, there is a reason GM and ford are doing poorly, they REFUSE, and have REFUSED to change anything since the 70s, it the executives fault, not the workers or the unions.

Social medicine, it seems to work for most of Europe, and Canada. The united states spends more per person on medical treatment than any other fully developed nation. We also don't have the highest life expectancy, or the lowest infant mortality rate. As well we have a HUGE number of uninsured. Try not being able to afford to see the doctor, THEN come tell me how great our system works.

I agree, we need to make our primary education much harder. That still doesn't change the fact that the cost of college essentially segregates the poor out of higher education. And don't feed me that "hard work" crap, sure hard work pays off, but when you need to feed yourself, you need to feed yourself THATS, THAT, sometimes school isnt an option.

Yes you should pay more taxes on that money, you can afford to pay much higher taxes, when you raise the taxes of the poor, that takes money that would be used for rent, or maybe a family vacation, where you would probably be using that money to get the SL500 Mercedes instead of the AMG. You can afford to pay more, both of you are still working for your money and paying your fair share, they just happen to need that money more than you.

If you don't wanna work and you wanna sit on your ass you get ****. I don't think any one should be able to live on welfare.

 

[Samirol]

Here's an excerpt from an essay Joker, and makes an excellent case for progressive taxation:

Progressive taxation—taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor—is a moral issue. Like many moral issues, it sparks heated debate. The debate is borne of conflicting worldviews, values, and understandings of values. But as we at the Rockridge Institute have written, when progressives understand the values and ideas that underlie their positions on issues, they can articulate arguments authentically and with greater persuasive force. These arguments will appeal to those whom we call biconceptuals—the great majority of Americans whose worldviews borrow in various ways from both progressive and conservative values.

America's government has at least two fundamental functions, protection and empowerment. Protection includes the police, firefighters, emergency services, public health, the military, and so on. Empowerment includes the infrastructure needed for business and everyday life: roads, communications systems, water supplies, public education, the banking system for loans and economic stability, the SEC for the stock market, the courts for enforcing contracts, air traffic control, support for basic science, our national parks and public buildings, and more. We are usually aware of protection. But the empowerment infrastructure, provided by taxes, is usually taken for granted, hidden, or ignored. Yet it is absolutely crucial, a fundamental truth about America and why America provides opportunity.

This is a basic truth. That is what framing should be about: revealing truths and allowing us to reason using them.

Taxes are part of our common wealth, what we all share. Protection and empowerment serve the common good. Because of our common wealth, we are all protected and America's empowering infrastructure is available to all. That is a fundamental America value: the common wealth should serve the common good. It benefits everyone.

Citizens are financially responsible to maintain this common wealth. If we shirked this responsibility, we could not maintain our roads, fund our schools, protect ourselves from military threats, enforce our laws, and so on. Equally importantly, we could not create prosperity for ourselves, because we would have no protection of our intellectual property, no oversight of our markets, no means to enforce our contracts, no way to educate most of our children.

Several main progressive values support the idea of progressive taxation. One is the belief that the common wealth should be used for the common good. Another is responsibility, the responsibility that citizens have to pay for the benefits we receive from our common wealth. And still another is fairness. These values intertwine on the question of progressive taxation.

Few people dispute this responsibility at some level. Disagreements generally arise over the amount and the relative apportionment of the responsibility. Differing concepts of fairness drive this debate. While many progressives say it is only fair that those who earn more pay a higher percentage of their earnings as taxes compared to those who have difficulty making ends meet, conservatives respond by asserting that it is unfair to "punish" the financially successful by making them pay more.

An important point often lost in this debate is an appreciation that the common wealth, which our taxes create and sustain, empowers the wealthy in myriad ways to create their wealth. We call this compound empowerment — the compounded use of the common wealth by corporations, their investors, and other wealthy individuals.

Consider Bill Gates. He started Microsoft as a college dropout and has become the world's richest person. Though he has undoubtedly benefited from his unusual intelligence and business acumen, he could not have created or sustained his personal wealth without the common wealth. The legal system protected Microsoft's intellectual property and contracts. The tax-supported financial infrastructure enabled him to access capital markets and trade his stock in a market in which investors have confidence. He built his company with many employees educated in public schools and universities. Tax-funded research helped develop computer science and the internet. Trade laws negotiated and enforced by the government protect his ability to sell his products abroad. These are but a few of the ways in which Mr. Gates' accumulation of wealth was empowered by the common wealth and by taxation.

As Warren Buffet famously observed, he likely couldn't have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market.

Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors — those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest — make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody's tax money.

The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.

This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.

It is a truth that undercuts conservative arguments about taxation. Taxes provide and maintain the protecting and empowering infrastructure that makes our income possible.

Our tax forms hide this truth. They do not indicate the extent to which taxes have created and sustained the common wealth so you could earn what you have. They make it look like the empowering infrastructure was just put there by magic and that the government is taking money out of your pocket. The most likely truth is that, through the common wealth, America put more money in your pocket than it took out — by far.

But this situation is threatened by conservative tax policy. Through unfair cuts in taxes paid by the wealthy, through payment for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and through borrowing abroad to pay for the tax cuts and Iraq, the common wealth is being drained and the infrastructure allowed to fall apart. We need to return to a fair tax policy that recognizes financial responsibility incurred by the compound use of America's empowering infrastructure.

 

[Transcend]

You and transcend can have fun being worked to oblivion so rich people can have more money (that at some point they cant even actually spend)

Those of us with high levels of education and our own business need not live in your bubble of warped reality. Carry on.

 

[TheMontashu]

Those of us with high levels of education and our own business need not live in your bubble of warped reality. Carry on.

For those of us left out of higher education, because we can't afford it, what are we supposed to do?

You also have to remember you are nowhere close to being what I consider rich, Remember 50% of the wealth is controlled by the top 5% the top 1% control like 1/3rd the wealth in America, with the bottom 50% getting like 10%. Try looking at it from to perspective of those who don't have instead of worrying only about yourself (don't worry though, I don't blame you, the system has you trained well to worry about your own pocket book, instead of other people, you have been taught it's O.K. to exploit peoples labor and resources so you can have cheaper crap) Again have fun with faith in a system that currently is cause more than 1 war [more than just Iraq/Afgansitan] and is about to send a couple more African countries into civil war)

Have fun with your system that exploits the poor paying them pennies a day, so the guy who owns the place can make 10.1million instead of 10 million


Edit, the only reason you are "more educated" is cause I'm 19, soon as a finish college I will be "just like you" Not please stop trying to insinuate you are better than me, I find it slightly disrespectful, cause simply put you're not.

 

[Transcend]

For those of us left out of higher education, because we can't afford it, what are we supposed to do?

Work your ass off and get a scholarship like the rest of us who cannot afford it. (ie: me)

As for the rest of the bla bla bla. Your sense of entitlement is mesmerizing and pathetic. quit being a whiny bitch and apply yourself.

 

[TheMontashu]

Work your ass off and get a scholarship like the rest of us who cannot afford it. (ie: me)

As for the rest of the bla bla bla. Your sense of entitlement is mesmerizing and pathetic. quit being a whiny bitch and apply yourself.

Excuse me, how dare you judge me, I'm sitting on a 3.9 right now at the local community college so I can transfer to UC Berkeley. I just have a problem when a kid who comes from a less fortunate family simply has to get in so they can go to school, and mommy and daddy pay for it. If you can't afford school you have to work 3 times as hard to get a scholarship or take out student loans (Thanks to AGAIN rich people for destroying the credit market so its now pretty tough to get those things)

The only sense of entitlement I have is the right to have an EQUAL opportunity to an education, sorry if that makes me a whiny bitch.

 

[Samirol]

Transcend, what is selfish about wanting others to have more opportunities and have an easier time getting an education?

 

[Serial Midget]

The only sense of entitlement I have is the right to have an EQUAL opportunity to an education, sorry if that makes me a whiny bitch.

You may or may not have a high sense of entitlement (to me it sounds like you do) but I can tell you for a FACT that, as a resident of California, you have a significant advantage that students in other states wouldn't be whining about.

 

[Samirol]

You may or may not have a high sense of entitlement (to me it sounds like you do) but I can tell you for a FACT that, as a resident of California, you have a significant advantage that students in other states wouldn't be whining about.

There is a difference between entitlement (I deserve something) and sympathy/caring (Everyone deserves something). Maybe sympathy and caring are the wrong words, but I think the point is clear

There is no reason why everyone shouldn't be able to get a 4 year degree for no cost, besides selfishness and apathy. Transcend is basically saying "I worked hard for something, you should to". That hinders progress as a society, when we should be making it easier to succeed rather than harder.

 

[manimal]

...um...adding regulation to the market is a necessary at this point. All the other stuff... Unions are bringing down the auto industry, they disincentivize hard work. Social medicine? Yeah, we'll definately get the best docs that way. Low income definately makes up for 10yrs of schooling. Free education? How about actually educating our students so that by the time they hit college, they are functional adults? highschool graduates know less today than 20 years ago. Highschool level knowledge in the 60's is on par with undergrad today.
Higher taxation on the rich? Maybe on income, but if I save every penny I make from just out of school, make a few good trades, and end up with a few million in the bank, why do I have to pay taxes on my wealth? It was accrued through frugality and hard work. Why should I share that AND my income with those unwilling to work? (Not the unable, un-WILLING; obesity and obesity related diseases fall under unwilling. You have to try to hate yourself enough to not be able to work because you are so fat)

 

[manimal]

Transcend, what is selfish about wanting others to have more opportunities and have an easier time getting an education?

because, in order to attain this utopian goal, the fruits of the hard working must first be garnished to pay for it.

 

[TheMontashu]

because, in order to attain this utopian goal, the fruits of the hard working must first be garnished to pay for it.

Should every one not have equal opportunity, to said fruits.

By your logic, why should my tax money have gone to Katrina victims, it's my money why should I help them out.

 

[Serial Midget]

There is no reason why everyone shouldn't be able to get a 4 year degree for no cost, besides selfishness and apathy.

At no cost to whom??? Bull****.

As a general rule, people seldom appreciate that which is available for free.

No government program, parent or student loan facilitated or hampered my ability to acquire an education so no, I don't have any sympathy for your or your perceived plight. You'll find a way to get the education you want.

 

[TheMontashu]

At no cost to whom??? Bull****.

As a general rule, people seldom appreciate that which is available for free.

No government program, parent or student loan facilitated or hampered my ability to acquire an education so no, I don't have any sympathy for your or your perceived plight. You'll find a way to get the education you want.

You are missing my point, education should be free for every one. It is a simple FACT that it is much easier for a rich kid than a poor kid to get an education, the poor have to overcome allot more to get into college, and once in have to struggle to afford it. I am not saying we should give people stuff, but if you work hard enough to get into a good college, then you should be able to go regardless of how much money you have. As a society we are responsible to pay for that. This isn't necessarily about me, but I have seen several friends have to drop out of school so they can pay rent. A good friend of mine got emancipated at 16, had a damn hard life supporting herself and found a way to get into UC Davis. She doesn't have any one to cosign and just got denied for her loans. She has worked harder than any one I know and know has been Fed out of an education because she can't afford it

 

[Samirol]

As a general rule, people seldom appreciate that which is available for free.

No government program, parent or student loan facilitated or hampered my ability to acquire an education so no, I don't have any sympathy for your or your perceived plight. You'll find a way to get the education you want.

People don't appreciate charity? I'm pretty sure the kids that benefit from Toys for Tots appreciate getting Christmas gifts. That statement isn't based in any sort of logic.

I will be able to get the education I want, but not everybody can.

 

[Transcend]

People don't appreciate charity? I'm pretty sure the kids that benefit from Toys for Tots appreciate getting Christmas gifts. That statement isn't based in any sort of logic.

I will be able to get the education I want, but not everybody can.

Apparently you haven't attended a Private US university and watched the trust funders coasting through on mommy and daddy's money while smoking pot and drinking every night and graduating with a c average.

I can 100% guarantee you I appreciate the education I busted my ass for much more than they do.

For this reason, I also do not think that "higher education should be available for everyone." Some people just are not cut out for it for whatever reason and are a waste of funds to put into university. They may be fantastic at something else (almost everyone is at something), but school isn't for everyone.

I think the level of self-entitlement some people have is disgusting. Healthcare should be universally paid for by the state, no question. It is a necessary service. Education is not.

Some people excel at school, some people can't handle it and some people just don't give a rat's ass. From my experience, there is a huge majority of people of the latter in higher education in north america as a whole. Just going with the flow with no real intention of educating themselves, simply getting the paper. They should be weeded out. Do some people fall through the cracks, of course and that needs to be sorted out. Federal student aid loans do NOT require a cosigner, bank educational loans sometimes will if you have poor or no credit history. It is an unsecured loan, they have no choice.

As for saying it is easier for a rich kid to get into school, complete bull. They have to pass the same exams and entrance criteria. Pell grants, loans, bursaries and scholarships will make sure that deserving people make their way into the system. I even had a professor tell me "if you have to pay for your own master's degree, you shouldn't be in the program. He was completely serious.

Edit: Success by definition is something you earn, not something that is handed to you. Why the hell does it have to be "easier" to succeed? Wow. I can tell you I sure as hell do not want my surgeon to have become "successful" because it was made easier for him. Wtf?

 

[TheMontashu]

Apparently you haven't attended a Private US university and watched the trust funders coasting through on mommy and daddy's money while smoking pot and drinking every night and graduating with a c average.

I can 100% guarantee you I appreciate the education I busted my ass for much more than they do.

For this reason, I also do not think that "higher education should be available for everyone." Some people just are not cut out for it for whatever reason and are a waste of funds to put into university. They may be fantastic at something else (almost everyone is at something), but school isn't for everyone.

I think the level of self-entitlement some people have is disgusting. Healthcare should be universally paid for by the state, no question. It is a necessary service. Education is not.

Some people excel at school, some people can't handle it and some people just don't give a rat's ass. From my experience, there is a huge majority of people of the latter in higher education in north america as a whole. Just going with the flow with no real intention of educating themselves, simply getting the paper. They should be weeded out.

I'm not suggesting every one has the right to go to college, I'm saying it should be free for whose who get in. When you do that several things happen, it truly gives the poor much more of the ability to better them selfs. If they know that they can actually go to school if they work hard, and not have to worry about paying for it there will be more incentive to work harder. You also eliminate the trust funder from equation, because a spot in college can no longer be bought. Not to mention the fact that you are drawing from a larger pool, in tern causing the standard (being that there is the same number of spots in colleges) to be raised.

 

[Transcend]

No, when it's free you skip class, party all night and generally don't really apply yourself. Again, there are exceptions, but it's human nature. Just ask a lot of the athletes who get full riders to $55k a year schools. They really do not care.

The exact same thing happens with many of the trust funders. School becomes a social event and when they are about to get expelled all they say is "not my money!"

The worst part is, these guys are taking up spots that would otherwise go to other students. The program I was originally accepted into way, way back had places for 25 students a year. 2000+ applied. It would really suck to be #26 if you found out your spot was given to some half wit who really had no intention of doing anything but partying but met the entry criteria and passed an interview (it happens more than you think).

These guys do not "buy" their way in. They earn it just like you and I from high school or whatever, they just don't care once they get there and have no intention of it from the word go.

 

[TheMontashu]

No, when it's free you skip class, party all night and generally don't really apply yourself. Again, there are exceptions, but it's human nature. Just ask a lot of the athletes who get full riders to $55k a year schools. They really do not care.

The exact same thing happens with many of the trust funders. School becomes a social event and when they are about to get expelled all they say is "not my money!"

The worst part is, these guys are taking up spots that would otherwise go to other students. The program I was originally accepted into way, way back had places for 25 students a year. 2000+ applied. It would really suck to be #26 if you found out your spot was given to some half wit who really had no intention of doing anything but partying but met the entry criteria and passed an interview (it happens more than you think).

These guys do not "buy" their way in. They earn it just like you and I from high school or whatever, they just don't care once they get there and have no intention of it from the word go.

If you screw up you get kicked out and there is room for some one more deserving and then they will get the spot

Oh, and rich kids don't "earn" there way into school like allot of kids do. coming out of a good public school (one of the top schools in the state) he got into UCSC on a 2.4, the high school I went to had a 4% UC acceptance rate......

 

[Silver]

As for saying it is easier for a rich kid to get into school, complete bull. They have to pass the same exams and entrance criteria.

In Canada, for a public university, that is the case.

In the US, with many of the big name universities being private, there is this glorious concept of a "legacy".

 

[Samirol]

Do people in Europe that get free or even get paid to get a 4-year college education appreciate it? Yes. Your argument isn't based on the reality of most people that will benefit and is instead based on people that have been spoiled their entire lives.

Your post was also contradictory, you talked about how rich kids in the beginning of your post sail through it without trying, but later you say that it isn't harder for them to get in.

In the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights, it says that education is a human right. We as a society have a duty to provide the best possible education to our citizens.

 

[manimal]

Should every one not have equal opportunity, to said fruits.

not without my permission. to continue the "fruits" analogy. if i worked my butt off on my land in the field and my crop had a great yield for the season, enough to feed my family with some left over, should the surplus then become government property because my hard work gave a greater return than what my family needs to survive? or should I be allowed to decide what to do with the surplus and hand it out to whom I felt deserved/needed it instead of letting anyone with a sense of entitlement just come walk onto my field and take it?
i do believe that the wealthy have a moral and social obligation to offer some assistance to those less fortunate but i am vehemently against the government dictating where that money goes. Hence the reason i pay nothing in federal taxes out of my paycheck; i'd rather hang onto my money, let it grow somewhere and just pay uncle sam what is due him on 4/15 instead of giving him a monthly loan from my pocket.

 

[$tinkle]

i want to print this thread & take it behind a middle school & smoke it.

 

[Silver]

Ayn Randish stuff

Why do you work as a police officer and not as a private security guard.

 

[Transcend]

If you screw up you get kicked out and there is room for some one more deserving and then they will get the spot

Oh, and rich kids don't "earn" there way into school like allot of kids do. coming out of a good public school (one of the top schools in the state) he got into UCSC on a 2.4, the high school I went to had a 4% UC acceptance rate......

It takes on average AT LEAST a year to be booted from most schools due to academic ineptitude. You go on academic probation, then get asked to leave. Then you are usually allowed to come back after a year.

And yes, "rich kids" earn their way in just like everyone else. Conspiracy theory much? My GPA out of high school wasn't extraordinarily high, but I had insane amounts of experience in the field I was going into and got accepted without so much as an interview based on my portfolio alone.

 

[TheMontashu]

not without my permission. to continue the "fruits" analogy. if i worked my butt off on my land in the field and my crop had a great yield for the season, enough to feed my family with some left over, should the surplus then become government property because my hard work gave a greater return than what my family needs to survive? or should I be allowed to decide what to do with the surplus and hand it out to whom I felt deserved/needed it instead of letting anyone with a sense of entitlement just come walk onto my field and take it?
i do believe that the wealthy have a moral and social obligation to offer some assistance to those less fortunate but i am vehemently against the government dictating where that money goes. Hence the reason i pay nothing in federal taxes out of my paycheck; i'd rather hang onto my money, let it grow somewhere and just pay uncle sam what is due him on 4/15 instead of giving him a monthly loan from my pocket.

Rich people aren't going to give enough. You are missing the whole point of capitalism, and that is to make money. There are not other rules (and if there are they are pretty much always broken) Giving money to the poor is not what you are supposed to be doing under capitalism, so why would people do that? People are greedy and wouldn't pay taxes. Again using your logic, I have a gun and am very compitant with it, so why should I pay for a police force. The military isn't being used for my defense, they are being used to make rich people richer (again a HUGE problem with capitalism) so why should I pay for they army.