But you made good points.

The landlady is crude, rude, insensitive, and, well, a little on the stupid side of the intelligence matrix.

She should care about her rents. Are they being paid or are the not. If paid, she has no further concerns. If not, well, then, she's got a problem. Other than that, if she wants to comment on her tenants lives it should be to compliment or support them. To criticize and insult someone the way she did demonstrates a cold heart in a soulless body.

That is something that the righties and I will agree about. Training to put people to work so they can be productive and pay taxes is always a good investment in society.

Not really an effective way to argue against the government helping people become qualified for a job so they can have a better life. The price of education in the USofA is completely out of hand, and I do not think the Gov should pay for it when it comes to 100K for a degree, but some price control in that area would be a positive.

Hope it works out well for you.

The cost of education is out of hand and the government should step in to A) control those costs OR B) make sure EVERYONE who is qualified can receive higher education, without being burdened with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt when they graduate.

That's what a civilized nation would do, especially one that wants to be on top in innovation and equality and progress.

My opinion. Peace.

of the United States to have a well educated population, and to that end I believe in free public education all the way up through an Associate Degree or equivalent. How to pay for that would be another matter but I would rather see tax dollars spent on that then on grounded F-35 planes or another warship we don't need. Some people look at me like I have the plague or something.

A funny thing is, we were headed that way. There's an old saying, "as goes California, so goes the nation." And back in the 60s, California had probably the finest system of higher education in the world. Supported by tax dollars, any resident of the state who qualified could attend and pay zero for tuition. This was when living costs were such that a student could support him/herself waiting tables, so really, anyone could go. And it worked. I have no doubt that California's prosperity of that era was fueled by this pool of highly-educated people, from all walks of life. IMHO.

Then Saint Ronnie of the Raygun became governor. Ronnie didn't want to pay for the education of "people who disagreed with him", so he cut the funding. And now we have what we have ("as goes California...).

Now, as you say, we can't afford butter 'cause we hafta buy all these guns.

It would be nice to have a national conversation on those terms again, wouldn't it?

That's telling her.

Good luck with getting your Class A CDL.

but not before telling them that's none of your damn business then slamming the door in their face

If I wanted the landlady's opinion I would have asked for it. These types always seem to gang up on the less fortunate. It seems like, if for some reason you're down on your luck, it's a sign of weakness and you should be ridiculed for it.

We should drop gender-based terms entirely.

And should I be saying "waitron"?

themselves actors whether they are male or female.

In the larger world of theatre, "actor" for both men and women is the standard, and has been since the beginning. I say this as someone who spent a long time in the theatre world.

Who knew?

Is it still safe to clear my throat, or will that offend someone?

Perhaps we need a derogatory term for people that are offended when no offense is meant.

I'm surprised you didn't take exception to raccoon's name.

I can understand if the Government provides no interest loans for training/education, but I sort of agree with your landlord in that I don't understand why yours should be free and others not so much....

I don't know if they do that any more.

Edited: yes they do, although there is now a financial need factor as well.

Your landlady doesn't get that her income is (at least in part) dependent on your UI benefits? It reminds of my DoD contractor co-workers who complain about government spending.

Maybe she would be willing to pick up where the state left off and pay for your retaining?

I heard two right-wing Tea Party Republicans carry on with their nonsense about the socialist government and the socialist Democratic Party the socialist President Obama. The both were going on about how government needs to get out out the way so free enterprise can work. Well, that would be bad enough. But earlier in the conversation one of them was talking about their plans to build an extended care facility for elderly and disabled that would rely almost entirely on Medicare and Medicaid funding as well as additional government support much of it no doubt coming as a results of the dreaded "Obamacare". The other right-wing blowhard was the second in command of a federally funded program that tries to promote business development and tourism for the islands where I live. They don't seem to accomplish anything except keeping themselves in a luxurious lifestyle. I guess market discipline and tough love are for lesser life forms then themselves.

I would move. Your land lady is a stupid busy body. I can take stupid and I can take a busy body, but both in the same person is very difficult indeed. No doubt she is horrid in other ways.

and I don't care where the rent money comes from, just so long as I have it at the first of the month.

Good for you.

A simpleton who thinks that people are entirely self-sufficient and dependent on NOTHING from civilization and/or cooperation.

She would be the first one to perish if there was ever anything like a 'survival of the fittest' max max scenario... as others pointed out, she'd be flushed down the drain if she lost her income from 'gov socialism'.

are takers. LOL You should remind her that when you were working you helped pay for people's unemployement for your taxes. You should ask her what is better. Helping people get retrained for a new job or robb banks.

... she'd be pretty quick to declare bankruptcy and ask for the government's help for protection from her creditors.

Ummm...not to draw too fine a point but, maybe if they were making sufficient revenue they wouldn't be laying off employees. Employment is a reaction to consumer demand.

It's not their fault consumers stopped consuming. They'd rather have the business -- it's how they make that filthy, filthy lucre they love so much.

& jobs and lobbying for safety net benefit cuts.

whose fault do *you* think it is?

you think consumers just decided en masse to 'stop consuming'?

on the whole, not job creators.

Just a thought, maybe not necessarily good......

They only make profits if business is good -- and business isn't.

Where did that cash come from?

And what is this?
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/03/news/economy/record-corporate-profits/index.html

The move provides hope that the lost decade for stocks is finally over. Bulls claim the recovery is slowly improving, as corporate profits also reach new highs. The New York Times recently reported that corporate profits accounted for 14.2 percent of national income in the third-quarter of 2012, the largest share in over 60 years.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/dow-all-time-high-how-is-this-time-different.html/

power and unlimited access to government and market loans and resources to buy out the smaller businesses that are actually the real creative engines.

They often strip out companies tossing out productive, yet lower profit components, and then using our hard won productivity technologies and innovations to *reduce* labor. That is where many of them are making their money. Through financial leverage, control of government resources, finding competitive markets and turning them into semi-monopolies, automating and eliminating labor.

Mega corporations only expand to increase their power and global footprint. Often times they *reduce* choices in the marketplace, because it is actually more profitable for them.

Just travel outside to a part of the world that they are not fully in control, like Eastern Europe. Not so many wal-,marts, but the selection of products dwarfs what we have in our brick and morter mega corps shelves.

I have no doubt that if they had to actually compete on a level playing field based on innovation and not financial thuggary, market corruption, and mega propaganda they could not.

STOP saying they "create jobs"! They don't! (others, not you HitPoint)

without it - does she suppose that there is an endless supply of tenants able to pay rent?

She probably fancies herself one of the 1% because she owns a building.