Trade and Education

Huffington Post - Targeting Trade and Trade Pacts for Job Losses Is Counterproductive in Presidential Campaigns.  The Huffington Post is pretty liberal, though, seems to be more behind Hillary than Sanders.  This writer claims that free trade agreements have been good for the United States because the trade deficit is offset by the increase in foreign investment in the United States. I want you to read that again and make sure you understand his argument.

What he has basically argued is that we lose in manufacturing; but, people who own the country are increasing their return by selling the country to foreign interests.  So who paid for the loss of manufacturing? The middle class. And who benefited from the increase in asset sales, the .1%.

So yesterday was Memorial Day, a holiday to honor those who have fought for this country. Today, there were a number of movies about World War II on television. I watched a couple on Turner Classic Movies. I watched "The Cain Mutiny" and "Mr. Roberts". It reminded me of something, the wealthy got drafted during World War II also. By Vietnam, the wealthy were able to keep there kids in college and thereby avoid the draft, they found lots of ways to change the laws so that their kids didn't have to fight and risk their lives.

How many children of the people who run the financial industry are in Iraq, Afghanistan or the military at all? Do you think that globalists send their kids to join the military and fight for this country when they do not believe in nationalism? While much could be said about that, I want to talk about the effect it has. See, during World War II the wealthy fought alongside the poor and middle class, they made friends with people who had less and were risking their lives side by side with them. As a result of that war, America became the wealthiest nation in the world. Wealthy kids today only spend time with the middle or lower class when being served. They do not see themselves as having anything in common with the middle class or lower class because they don't know them on a personal level.

The one place where the young wealthy and middle class are treated almost like equals is in college; but, you are more likely to see people from foreign countries is in the more expensive colleges and you will be less likely to see middle class kids.

I came from a middle class family and my parents poured money into putting me through college. Law School cost them even more and I had to take out school loans. Upon graduating, it took me years to pay off those loans and I did, on time and early. My parents could not have done that today and I would have to had think long and hard before taking on the debt that it would cost today. I probably would have had over $150,000 dollars debt by todays standards. The equivalent of half of the cost of a house in Los Angeles today and I am being very conservative in my numbers. I don't know if I would have taken on that amount of debt.

Here is a question, if middle class and working class cannot afford and are not allowed into state run colleges, then why do we pay for them with our tax dollars? Why are we paying taxes for state run colleges and universities that take foreign students before American students because foreigners pay more?

Here is a thought, why not eliminate all funding for state Universities and use that money to give college vouchers to kids whose parents are middle or working class. Then are taxes will be used to educate our children and they will be free to pick which college to go to without cost being a problem? Isn't that the same logic that is used by the right to promote charter schools and vouchers for private school? It is; but, they will not come out in support of what I just said.

I forgot something, no college vouchers for anyone whose parents make over $300,000 a year, I think their parents don't need the rest of us to help pay for their kids college. Think about it.