Any americans watch the debate last night?

[DragonRose]

Example: Canada! Canada has free healthcare and college, yet their country has not grown very much. They are 1/10 of the american population and 1/50 of our army, and 1/100 of our value.

Woah! We've got free post-secondary school tuition? Tell that to my student debt!

Do you know why we're 1/10 of the American Population, Mr. Poop?  It's because we aren't over populated. We have huge national parks and reserves. The northern portions of most provinces are still rather untouched. We still have rainforest, the only temperate rainforest left in North America. 

We don't have the armed forces America has.  Do you know why? Because we don't go to war with other countries.  We try using diplomatic chanels instead of attacking "possible threats."  In fact, most of the time that the Canadian troops are deployed, we're cleaning up from other wars.   That's why they're actually called "The Peacekeepers."

And 1/100 of American value? What does that mean?  Our dollar is worth 80 American cents.  Our exports of lumber, wheat, oil and other natural resources are what keep the United States running.  The United States actually gets a very large percentage of it's oil from the exotic oil sands of Western Canada.  We have a thriving artistic culture, with Canadians being some of the most respected writers and actors in the world: Margaret Atwood, Michael Ondaatje, Martin Short, Yann Martel, Jim Carrey, Mike Meyers, William Hutt, Lucy Peacock... the names can go on and on.  Where, exactly, is our value less than yours?

Besides.  We're bigger than you.

[poop743]

Land doesnt matter! Can you fight a war with land! I think not. Also canada isnt 8/10 of our value. We are only a relatively weak dollar because of inflation and the fact that we have trillions of dollars more than you. Take great britain for example. A pound is worth 1.75 american dollars. Are they 75% larger than us? no. Yes it is true the canadian dollar has been getting more valuable though. Also, thankx for PEI and the 500k I made there! Cheers.

PS. Your beer sucks

[Pumaman]

I'm one of 4 children. My school costs 22,000 dollars a year per child. Thjats before taxes. If taxes get higher, i will either have to transfer schools or my parents will have to sell one of our beloved beach houses.

Forgive me if I don't shed too many tears at the prospect.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that even America still provides free education up to age 16, so there's no need to spend $22,000 on a private school. The vast majority of people don't, and get by just fine.

Also i have some tips to get rich for you guys. Do not fear wealth, embrace it! There is a fortune waiting for all of you. And if one of you happens to make over 200k one day, or if you make over 200k right now, i urge you to seem my side.

Have you even considered the possibility that not everybody wants to 'get rich'? What's the point - so that you can buy a 52" TV rather than a 25" one, and own a beach house rather than renting it for one week each year?

I also notice that you haven't bothered to respond to my points. Fair enough.

America is about opportunities, not just free handouts. Nothing is straight out given to you right away. There is no excuse to be homeless in America today. If youre willing to work you can be anyone in america.

Tell that to all the people living in depressed towns like Flint, Michigan where the last source of employment has shut down. How exactly are the people there supposed to get rich? There's no work to be had in the town. Starting a new business would fail, because nobody in the town has any money to spend. They can't move elsewhere, because they can't afford to. So what's the magic cure?

About the debate: John kerry said bush lead us into Iraq with a bad plan! Who the hell is John kerry to say bush made a bad plan. What does he think bush does? Sit there in a friggin war room all day and write up plans for war? No.

Bush and his advisors should at least have considered what would happen post-war, and constructed some sort of plan for dealing with the aftermath, rather than just charging in guns blazing and then suddenly realising "oops, what do we do now then?"

Land doesnt matter! Can you fight a war with land! I think not.

Oh of course, a country's importance is defined by its ability to wage war. How silly of me to forget -- I mean, that was the case 100 years ago so obviously it still is today.

[veryweirdguy]

Is that all you want? War?

Looking over your posts, you seem interested in nothing but taxes & war. Granted, the taxes issue is important, but surely you are hoping to have NO more wars, especially what with the farce over the last one.

And I'm sure Rosiecakes is tres offended by the beer remark. Don't cry Dragonrose, it'll all be okay.

[Snarky]

Poop, you crack me up!

Kerry is singling out and abandoning people making over 200k. Alot more people make over that than he thinks. 90% of the kids at my school have parents making over 200k.

Yeah, and I'm sure your school is a representative cross-section of the US. It's not as if rich people cluster together in exclusive neighborhoods or anything.

And can you guys stop calling me silver platter boy and giving me crap.

Little chance of that if you're going to go on saying stupid shit like this:

I know alot about kerry despite my age

John Kerry:
-wants to ban the pledge of allegiance in schools Ã, because it has "god" in it

Point one: I can't find any references to Kerry saying anything about that, and I'm sure you can't either. So the first thing you "know" about Kerry isn't even true.

Point two: No one wants to ban the Pledge of Allegiance. They just want to change it back to the way it used to be. It didn't originally say "under God", that bit was added in 1954 (because the Soviet Union was atheist).

Point three: I guess you have to be a damned liberal hippy to want to protect the US Constitution, which in the very first Amendment clearly prohibits Congress from "respecting an establishment of religion".

-Is going to weaken america because we need a strong cowboy right now, not some hippy dippy senator

Ah, yes! The hippy dippy sissyman John Kerry. The guy was in a rock band. He played hockey. He volunteered to go to Vietnam, where he received two medals for bravery, was wounded three times, and killed enemy soldiers with his own hands. After he came back, he led demonstrations and was arrested by the police.

Meanwhile, George W Bush snorted coke, used his family connections to keep out of 'Nam, went into daddy's oil business and failed miserably, drank too much and picked up DUI tickets.

W's macho image is a fraud. His bravery and strength of character is a joke compared to that of John Kerry.

-Is going to cut military funding and leave america in shambles

I guess it was your bedtime before the end of the debate. You missed the bit where Kerry said he'd increase military funding.

-Wants to end all of the nuke-building in america. I feel safe in america knowing we are the only country with hundreds of nukes to back us up. I couldnt sleep easy without them.

You already have hundreds of nukes. In fact the US has some 70,000 nuclear weapons. According to some sources, enough to devastate the surface of the earth 30 times over. What possible reason would there be to spend money to build more of them?

[Pumaman]

PS. Your beer sucks

So does yours -- Australia is the only place to go for beer

[Andail]

Hehe, Poop, make sure you save all your posts in a sealed envelope and open it in some ten years. No wait, give it twenty years. You will laugh your head off.

Nobody here takes you seriously, because you don't have any proper arguments, you just ramble about things you've heard your parents say, and still you get it pretty confused.

I don't think people should waste energy replying to your posts, because first of all you don't seem to read them at all, and secondly you make a pretty fine job promoting the democrats by the sheer siliiness in your attempts to refute them.

Do yourself a favour and stop posting.

[Renal Shutdown]

I might as well throw my two pence into this.

-wants to ban the pledge of allegiance in schools Ã, because it has "god" in it

I'm in complete agreement with this. Ã, I think that it is morally wrong to force religious beliefs on to another person.

-Isnt going to allow us to drill for oil in alaska, even though the amount of oil there is ridiculous, because he cares about polar bears

What right does a human have to endanger an animal? None. Ã, Just because we have opposable thumbs, doesn't make us the greatest species in the world. Ã, In fact, it's only because of man that the world is in such a poor state at the moment. Ã, The way you use this as a Kerry down point, makes me think of you as one of the neglected children who torture small animals for fun.

-Is going to weaken america because we need a strong cowboy right now, not some hippy dippy senator

In Britain, a "cowboy" is usually a plumber or electrician etc, that comes in and does the work badly for an extortionate amount of money. Ã, The way Bush has shown himself in the past, it's an accurate description. Ã, Iraq, for example. Ã, He rushed in, bodged it and ended costing far more than it should have.

-Is going to cut military funding and leave america in shambles

America is not just a military force, it is a country. Ã, I'm sure the money taken from weapons would go to improving other sections of the nation.

-Wants to end all of the nuke-building in america. I feel safe in america knowing we are the only country with hundreds of nukes to back us up. I couldnt sleep easy without them.

Firstly, America already has enough. Ã, Ending building and Disarming are two different things. Ã, Secondly, they're weapons of mass distruction. Ã, What makes it ok for America to own them, but not other countries? Ã, Thirdly, your attitude towards this reminds me of the fact that America has the highest gun crime problem in the world.

Kerry is nobody. Liberals just vote fpr him because he isnt bush.

Four years ago, Bush was just the son of a former president, who had killed over a hundred Texan convicts. Ã, It's not like it's Arnie, or Reagan.

Example: Canada! Canada has free healthcare and college, yet their country has not grown very much. They are 1/10 of the american population and 1/50 of our army, and 1/100 of our value.

I don't understand your point here? The people are happy and safe. Ã, Is that in someway bad?

The future of the world is republicans. Some call us mean capitalistic scumbags, I call us the leaders of tomorrow. When something needs to get done Ã, we do it. We dont save polar bears like pansies.

I'm not against Capitalism. Ã, I'd rather have Communism, but it only works in theory. Ã, I'm against the way Capitalism has become "let's all sh*t on the little guy, because we can". Ã, Republicans? Ã, Bush got to power thanks to people who considered themselves "Neo Con". Ã, I'm fine with Republicans, as long as they don't go to far Right Wing. Ã, Nazism and Fascism are just a short step from the Neo Con.

Personally, I'd vote for Kerry, because Bush's track record does make me either trust or like him. Ã, Not to mention the fact that he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[poop743]

I think this should be moved to the popular threads forum. This started as a thread about the debates. It became a debate about ethics and beliefs..and...ummm....canada.

But i do have one more counterpoint. There was a list in my newspaper about all of kerry and bush's beliefs. Every single thing i said about what kerry wanted to do as president was factual. Maybe canada doesnt hav free collge, but besides that im right.

Maybe the fact that you guys believe this way  is the reason that your countries[excluding my fellow americans out there]
are incredibly weak compared to my country.

And with that I leave this thread forever. Also, I really am DGmcaphee.............or am I?

[Pumaman]

That's hardly a "counter-point", when you haven't even bothered to acknowledge, let alone reply to, all the points that people have scored against you 

[Andail]

If you are DG, I said it before you in the critics lounge

If not, may God have mercy on you, poor child

[Snarky]

I don't like what you guys are saying about taxing the rich. If one person pays 30% of their income to the government, the next should pay exactly the same. If you tax the rich 90% just because they're rich, that is punishing people for being successful. That isn't fair and it reminds me more of communism than anything. What will motivate people to be doctors, engineers, scientists, and etc? Do you think the satisfaction they get from going to college for eight years to get paid as much as a common laborer would make it worthwhile? I don't.

If a person earning $40,000 a year pays 20% in tax, they're left with $32,000. If a person earning $200,000 pays 50% in tax, they're left with $100,000. That means they still have three times as much money left after taxes, which is a pretty good motivation to be a doctor or stockbroker (I doubt many engineers or scientists make anything like 200 grand a year).

I agree that all people should be taxed equally, but not in dollar terms. You see, if a waitress is taxed 30%, it may mean having to take another job. If someone earning more than $200,000 a year is taxed 30%, it may mean having to wait another six months to buy that new beachhouse. Who does taxation hurt more? (Hint: It's the waitress) The personal cost of taxation is not the same, even if the percentage rate is.

Don't think of it in terms of money, think of it in terms of what you're giving up because of that money.

A progressive tax rate (one that charges a higher percentage for people earning more money) is necessary to ensure that the tax burden in terms of personal cost is the same for everyone, as far as possible.

That's what a fair tax system means.

[Escargot]

actually, escargot, you should get your facts right. My parents are getting taxed 52% right now.

Wow, I do have my facts wrong. I would really like to know why they pay so much taxes. On average, people making more than $200,000 pay around 7% taxes (because they can afford accountants who trick out all the tax loopholes for them). Hats off to your parents, they are making a much higher than average contribution to the good of society!

One of my best friends growing up Europe had a dentist as a father. His father paid almost 75% in taxes; they still had a huge house and the newest BMW every year, and vacationed in the most expensive spots. Even though he was always complaining about taxes, he didn't seem to suffer much.

Last night, a thought occured to me: Bush keeps saying that lower taxes are good for the economy. But isn't the opposite true? If you can work less and be less productive to earn the same amount of money, because you're not paying so much in taxes, what's the motivation to be more productive? Wasn't that the big argument against communism? So lets have really high taxes so that people are properly motivated to be productive and get the economy going again!

Okay, I'm not 100% serious about that...Ã, 

[shbaz]

If one person pays 30% of their income to the government, the next should pay exactly the same. If you tax the rich 90% just because they're rich, that is punishing people for being successful.

But you're equating success with money, and that's not the case at all. Why would people who graduate with a degree become a teacher, when they could earn much more as an engineer? There's far more to being a success than how much cash you earn.

Usually that is exactly the case though. Teachers are govt. employees and unfortunately subject to govt. pay cuts. Why should a bricklayer who could barely handle public schooling make as much as the doctor who suffered through debt and poverty for 8 years to get through medical school? If you're going to say the bricklayer works harder, you need to check your pretenses because doctors are subject to call 24 hours of the day oftentimes, and they subject themselves to potential lawsuits and disease daily. As someone who has went to college to learn something that most people in the world aren't willing to even think about, you don't feel you deserve higher pay than a truck driver or a janitor? I think you do. You have more skills and you should be rewarded likewise. Your skills are more in demand and thus get more pay. They're more in demand because in modern times I find people want someone else to do their thinking for them, especially here in America. That's why people who are willing to think get paid more, and people who aren't but can do physical work do that. Supply and demand, which is perfectly fair. If your skills aren't in demand, you should help society by getting different skills, it's not society's responsibility to fund people with no or little use.

What will motivate people to be doctors, engineers, scientists, and etc?

Not everybody picks their career based on how much money they can earn, and nor should they -- really, what you're saying is the problem with capitalism. People should choose a career that gives them the most satisfaction in their job.

Money can still be used as a way of promoting people and so on, but only to a certain point. Personally, I believe that nobody deserves to be paid more than $100,000 unless they've contributed something absolutely amazing to the world, such as curing cancer.

I agree. I didn't pick my potential career based on how much money I will/can earn. The problem is that I'm subjecting myself to 4-5 years of hell trying to pay for college and keep good grades at the same time, and when that's over with I still want my due compensation. If I don't get it anyway I'm not going to quit but I would sure as hell be pissed about it.

If you can sucker someone out of $100,000 it's their fault for losing it, not your fault for getting it (unless you did it unfairly). There are a lot of things that a single person could do in a year that are well worth $100,000 beside curing cancer.

The only problem with capitalism is that exploiters gain power exponentially as they exploit - which is why there are a lot of laws in place trying to prevent that. Today people are willfully exploited through loans, credit cards, and entertainment because they are ignorant of the consequences and choose to remain ignorant. There is a load of information in place to prevent that from  happening and people don't even want to see it. They just want a new Dodge Ram with a Hemi. I rarely hear of people being exploited through their job (in the USA). Mostly it's through massive debt which they incurred by trying to live above their means and blame on the creditors. Who is really at fault, is it the creditors for giving them the money at an interest rate, or is it the loaner who couldn't pay for it and knew it but did it anyway? That is the root of most people's financial problems in the US and I give them no sympathy for it. If loaners can get hundreds of thousands of dollars through loaning people who will sign those contracts without even reading them, I don't blame the loaner. I blame the idiot who let himself be exploited.

If a person earning $40,000 a year pays 20% in tax, they're left with $32,000. If a person earning $200,000 pays 50% in tax, they're left with $100,000. That means they still have three times as much money left after taxes, which is a pretty good motivation to be a doctor or stockbroker (I doubt many engineers or scientists make anything like 200 grand a year).

I agree that all people should be taxed equally, but not in dollar terms. You see, if a waitress is taxed 30%, it may mean having to take another job. If someone earning more than $200,000 a year is taxed 30%, it may mean having to wait another six months to buy that new beachhouse. Who does taxation hurt more? (Hint: It's the waitress) The personal cost of taxation is not the same, even if the percentage rate is.

Don't think of it in terms of money, think of it in terms of what you're giving up because of that money.

A progressive tax rate (one that charges a higher percentage for people earning more money) is necessary to ensure that the tax burden in terms of personal cost is the same for everyone, as far as possible.

That's what a fair tax system means.

The problem isn't that the taxes are too high for the waitress with a flat tax rate, the problem is that the waitress's wages are too low. Raise min. wage and give a flat tax and the employer will be able to afford it because of the de-strangulation on his income.

Last night, a thought occured to me: Bush keeps saying that lower taxes are good for the economy. But isn't the opposite true? If you can work less and be less productive to earn the same amount of money, because you're not paying so much in taxes, what's the motivation to be more productive? Wasn't that the big argument against communism? So lets have really high taxes so that people are properly motivated to be productive and get the economy going again!

Okay, I'm not 100% serious about that... 

Kidding or not, that's the way I feel this conversation is headed. Communism isn't good even in concept. Everyone could benefit from reading some Ayn Rand.

[Ginny]

Righto, I've just watched part of the first debate, and just from that, I am sure Kerry would make a much better president. You might think someone from israel would prefer the canditate who blindly supports israel, i know several israelis who do, but I think it'd be much better for america to try and keep good terms with both israel and arab countries and/or palestinians. If anything, it might make them less bitter and help our country even more.
I have an uncle in america who I'd better as who he's voting for, though I'm quite sure he won't vote for bush, as last time he voted against him too.
So then, enough about israel .

actually, escargot, you should get your facts right. My parents are getting taxed 52% right now. Think of what Kerry will do. I know alot about kerry despite my age

If, in the future, I were to become rich and successfull, I'd gladly pay more taxes than others since despite everything that sucks about this place, I still care about my country.
shbaz has a point of course, but lets do the math, 52% (lets say 60%, assuming kerry raises taxes) of 650k = 260k a month. In 4 months, they make over a million dollars. In one year, over 3 million. Make your own conclusions.

John Kerry:
-wants to ban the pledge of allegiance in schools because it has "god" in it

I didn't quite know what that is either, though I heard of it, but after a quick look around the web, I found out the part about god wasn't even there originally. read this for more on that. With all the different religions and atheists aswell, 'under god' is quite controversial and those who don't believe in god have every right not to agree with it. Don't know where you heard Kerry wants to ban it, so I won't argue, but there's a good chance he just wants to remove what wasn't there in the first place.

-Isnt going to allow us to drill for oil in alaska, even though the amount of oil there is ridiculous, because he cares about polar bears

"I am appauled. It's appauling." How could kerry even think of saving polar bears, caring for the environment, and making sure the earth doesn't fall apart after all man has done to it, when America's oil supply is so low and there is absolutely no possible way to replace the oil!! How could he be so selfish? :

-Is going to weaken america because we need a strong cowboy right now, not some hippy dippy senator

-Is going to cut military funding and leave america in shambles

What CJ said.

- Wants to develop a plan to get all able-minded americans into college. I like the idea, but we just dont have the money for that, and the ttax burden would take more away from america than college puts in. Jobs requiring diplomas wont pay as much anymore, because everyone would have a degree.

You don't have the money to get people who have the potential to be brilliant eduacted in colleges? So, only the rich should be allowed education, and the cycle of success will continue? This makes changing your social position much harder, and as you say your dad is from a normal family, wouldn't you want people like him to be able to to progress in society? I am reminded of the age of feodalism (if I were to take it to the extrme of course), when the 'society class' you were born in (nobleman or lower class) was the class you had to live in all your life.

-Wants to end all of the nuke-building in america. I feel safe in america knowing we are the only country with hundreds of nukes to back us up. I couldnt sleep easy without them.

You sleep well because america has nuclear research going on? I will agree it's important for science, but the fact that it still is dangerous to america isn't at all calming. Ever heard of chernobyl? Obviously people who are working on these things are more careful now, but nevertheless, these things happen.

edit: Whoa, there sure were a lot of replies while I was typing this.

[shbaz]

Look, even if they still make over a million, think about it.

A major fooball player (any kind, it's irrelevant) can make millions in a single year, but their useful time span is fairly small and the risks are huge for their health and well-being. Many will play for some years and retire for the rest of their life.

Now, are you telling me that even though they made this their life for decades, focusing on nothing else and risking so much, they don't deserve to be able to make all of the money they'll need for their entire life in a period of 3-10 years and then retire? Training/working for 12 hours a day every day, eating only the healthiest foods, getting injured, and then getting taxed 70% because they make too much?

I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to give it their all and get paid for it. You probably scoff at entertainers, but the money they make will only allow them to live lavishly for as long as they're popular, most will need to spread those millions over their lifetime. High incomes are almost always involved with high risks or sacrifices.

And once again, if people will give it to them it's not their fault for getting it (if they're honest).

Furthermore, the government wastes more money than any rich person ever will. I trust myself to do the right thing with my money multitudes more than I'd trust any elected official.

[Snarky]

Everyone could benefit from reading some Ayn Rand. If you consider hysterical laughter a benefit.

Raising the minimum wage would help some. Specifically, it would help the people earning minimum wage. There would still not be an even tax burden, though. It's still harder to pay 30% tax for a middle-wage earner than it is for a high-income earner.

Ginny, no need for your friends to worry. Kerry blindly supports Israel as well.

[Nacho]

Mmmm... Between the "Disney blocks Michael Moore..." post and this, the Bush stuff has been discussed along something like 1000 posts.

And no one of the AGSers has changed its previous opinion.

So... I'll go and open my PSP, I have some backgrounds to do... I think it's a better way to use my time...

[Pumaman]

Why should a bricklayer who could barely handle public schooling make as much as the doctor who suffered through debt and poverty for 8 years to get through medical school?

I'm not saying he should make the same amount, but rather that the bricklayer is entitled to make a living where he can feed his family, pay his bills and still have some cash left over for other things.

After all, if there were no bricklayers then where would the doctor live?

Supply and demand, which is perfectly fair. If your skills aren't in demand, you should help society by getting different skills, it's not society's responsibility to fund people with no or little use.

Indeed, it does work on supply and demand. But therefore, suppose you do your college degree in anthropology, but then a few years after graduating there is a huge surplus of anthropologists and nobody wants to employ you any more. You still have your student debt to pay but your skills are now virtually worthless; how does capitalism help you now?

The problem is that I'm subjecting myself to 4-5 years of hell trying to pay for college and keep good grades at the same time, and when that's over with I still want my due compensation. If I don't get it anyway I'm not going to quit but I would sure as hell be pissed about it.

A university degree is by no means a guarantee of higher paid work, and you know that as a risk when you decide to go to university. Besides, I'm not trying to deny you your due compensation; all I'm saying is that you don't need to earn $200k in order to pay off your debts.

If you can sucker someone out of $100,000 it's their fault for losing it, not your fault for getting it (unless you did it unfairly). There are a lot of things that a single person could do in a year that are well worth $100,000 beside curing cancer.

Well true, if someone is prepared to pay you a fortune then it's your good luck. But it's a cycle that's virtually impossible to break, because all the company director types have a situation where no matter how well or badly they do their job, they get paid a ton. Even if they really screw up, they get rewarded with a golden handshake of a million or two when they're sacked. How is that fair?

Today people are willfully exploited through loans, credit cards, and entertainment because they are ignorant of the consequences and choose to remain ignorant.

Oh yeah, well consumer debt is quite another argument. And yes, I'd agree that it's your own fault if you rack up huge debts; you can hardly blame the banks for trying to make as much money from you as possible.

The problem isn't that the taxes are too high for the waitress with a flat tax rate, the problem is that the waitress's wages are too low. Raise min. wage and give a flat tax and the employer will be able to afford it because of the de-strangulation on his income.

If you raise the minimum wage rather than cutting taxes, then more money goes to the government in taxes. The government then wastes this on wars in Iraq, and leaves the waitress's employer worse off.

Communism isn't good even in concept.

A world in which nobody lives in poverty because the state assures everyone of a certain standard of living is very tempting to a lot of people. Of course, in practice it can never work, but the basic theory sounds very appealing.

[juncmodule]

So, Shbaz, I'm currently $35,000 in debt, I currently have NO way of paying it back. Does this make me an idiot?

See, the catch is that $35,000 is in college loans. Last year I left school to be a Truck Driver (

As someone who has went to college to learn something that most people in the world aren't willing to even think about, you don't feel you deserve higher pay than a truck driver or a janitor? I think you do.

What do I think again?). My point of leaving school was to pay those loans down in the event that my fiance' were to get pregnant/so we could get married/so we could buy a house (you know, American dream bullcrap). It gets all twisted around though. By leaving school I will never make more than $50,000 (and of course, to earn that much, never see my family). By staying in school I have to put family on hold until I am almost 40 years old (I am 30 right now). Basically, I'm wanting to go back to school now, but because of stress and the situation last year I screwed up my financial aid. I have to somehow pay for a quarter of school. I currently work in fast food and pulling $1000 out of a fast food job is going to take a bit of time.

What's the point of my life story?

By calling me...

the idiot who let himself be exploited

...you are looking at things in a very narrow view. I'm not buying a Dodge with a Hemi, I'm trying to educate and better myself. However, my pressure is more about buying a house, getting married, and raising children. It's a huge amount of pressure to deal with, and VERY real in my world. That pressure has put me into debt and at the same time makes it difficult to follow through with my education.

eh,
-junc