***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[i lax bro]

I just don't see how letting the bush tax cuts expire will somehow bring in a huge influx of money and help our economy grow... Is the gvt really a better spender than the rich people?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/democrats-unlikely-to-regain-house-in-2014/?g Pretty hypocritical for me to say Nate Silver is really good at what he does, considering two weeks ago I thought he was biased, but he proved me wrong

 

[Nike Jordan]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/democrats-unlikely-to-regain-house-in-2014/?g

Pretty hypocritical for me to say Nate Silver is really good at what he does, considering two weeks ago I thought he was biased, but he proved me wrong

A conservative being hypocritical? What a surprise!

 

[ccastro02]

I just don't see how letting the bush tax cuts expire will somehow bring in a huge influx of money and help our economy grow... Is the gvt really a better spender than the rich people?
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/democrats-unlikely-to-regain-house-in-2014/?g Pretty hypocritical for me to say Nate Silver is really good at what he does, considering two weeks ago I thought he was biased, but he proved me wrong

It by default would increase tax revenue by a trillion dollars. Money i'de hope would be used to bring down the national debt along with infrastructure improvements. Both of which the rich can't do.

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

I just don't see how letting the bush tax cuts expire will somehow bring in a huge influx of money and help our economy grow... Is the gvt really a better spender than the rich people?
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/democrats-unlikely-to-regain-house-in-2014/?g Pretty hypocritical for me to say Nate Silver is really good at what he does, considering two weeks ago I thought he was biased, but he proved me wrong

And I don't see how keeping the Bush Tax Cuts will benefit the economy at all.

It's been proven time and time again "trickle down" economics don't work. The rich don't employ more people and stimulate the economy when they pay less taxes, they just stash more of their money and build wealth for the future.

Hence why they say "the rich will only get richer".

 

[essential1]

I just don't see how letting the bush tax cuts expire will somehow bring in a huge influx of money and help our economy grow... Is the gvt really a better spender than the rich people?

Yes, the government actually is. Tax cuts have the a worse multiplier effect than any sort of spending/expenditure, especially tax cuts for the rich.

In a paradox of where it slightly helps are tax cuts for the poor and middle class are generally smaller, which can be used to get out of debt allowing people to then use their normal income to buy things, or if they are not in debt they go out and spend that money. Typically, those with upper income will put that money into investments in banks or the stock market, or just hold onto it in a savings account. Which does very little to stimulate an economy. Now if Americans are in debt more than the tax cut they receive, it has almost 0 influence.

Cutting taxes for business could stimulate an economy. But individual taxes at the higher end have shown no proof, ever of stimulating an economy.

Yet raising taxes is to close the deficit and lessen our debt.. Which I though conservatives were all for..

I think Romney had a decent idea. End a majority loopholes for higher end incomes (Loopholes could be for those over $1million plus)... That's where the good idea stopped. Simultaneously raise income tax of those over $250K from 35% to 38-39%. You would then have a much more representative tax rate %. Where a majority of Americans pay a real tax rate close to the income tax level they are at. That should be no different for the top 5%

 

[Coupé It]

Yea but you said earlier Essential that you'd want at some point for taxes to be raised on the income groups below 250k to be higher, I couldnt disagree more.

Thats where I draw the line from being a full blown liberal.

 

[rico x hood]

Ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would net a little over 800 billion in revenue. That's nothing compared to a 16 trillion dollar deficit. The whole debateaabout those tax cuts is more symbolic than an actual deficit reduction plan. Dems need to throw some prized entitlements on the chopping block and Republicans need to touch defense.

 

[david bowman]

Why are they called entitlements when we pay into the system for them?

And yes it's more symbolic. But it needs to happen.

They always talk about taking the country back and going back to the good ol days. Taxes were higher than ever back then. They are full of ****

They care more about Grover nor quits than the American people.

 

[essential1]

Ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would net a little over 800 billion in revenue. That's nothing compared to a 16 trillion dollar deficit. The whole debateaabout those tax cuts is more symbolic than an actual deficit reduction plan. Dems need to throw some prized entitlements on the chopping block and Republicans need to touch defense.

Entitlements do not need to be thrown on the "chopping block".

They need to be reformed. And much of how that can be done, is through a restructuring of how it's paid into. For example Social Security. Under no circumstance should the retirement age be raised, nor does the payment need to be lessened. And it especially should not be moved into a private system of the stock market. Stop lowering payroll taxes, it's a nonsense tax cut for everyone no matter what their income, and end the $100K cap on payroll taxes, and you have turned 30 years of viability, and a subsequent 40 years of viability at 75% benefit payout to 70 years of full viability, and far past the conundrum of the baby boomers who are such a large number that it is placing the system in a flux. Social Security has not one dime of the federal debt or deficit.

Furthermore, I think you create such a disingenuous comparison that in order for defense to be cut (even though we spend more than the next 16 countries), that taking care of the poor, the unable, and the elderly has to be a lesser concern.

No one is entitled to anything, but it is our duty as a society to take care of those who need help.

 

[ccastro02]

That is a really bad national debt to revenue comparison. The 16 trillion dollars is a gross estimate vs your 800 billion dollar net estimate.
If you compare them correctly the tax revenue generated from just letting the tax cuts expire on only those making 250k would equate to more than a 16th of the national debt per year. That's more than a trillion dollars a year.

 

[bandit country]

No one is entitled to anything, but it is our duty as a society to take care of those who need help.

You mean government's duty.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would net a little over 800 billion in revenue. That's nothing compared to a 16 trillion dollar deficit. The whole debateaabout those tax cuts is more symbolic than an actual deficit reduction plan. Dems need to throw some prized entitlements on the chopping block and Republicans need to touch defense.

The deficit is not 16 trillion, that's the national debt. The budget deficit is around 1.4 trillion.

And all this talk of "entitlements" specific social programs remind me of a George Charlin quote: "Have you noticed that their stuff is **** and your **** is stuff"

You go the kid who got students loans saying food stamps should stop
The person getting social security arguing against Obamacare
The who was once on welfare complaining about student loans

Everyone hates socialism, except the when socialism works for them

And I agree that all of Bushes tax cuts need to end eventually

 

[ar guy]

Furthermore, I think you create such a disingenuous comparison that in order for defense to be cut (even though we spend more than the next 16 countries), that taking care of the poor, the unable, and the elderly has to be a lesser concern.

I always hear people saying we should cut defense, but I've never heard any responsible way to do it without taking us back to the Clinton years. What I mean by that is we for the most part had a military that had no money for training.

 

[essential1]

Furthermore, I think you create such a disingenuous comparison that in order for defense to be cut (even though we spend more than the next 16 countries), that taking care of the poor, the unable, and the elderly has to be a lesser concern.

I always hear people saying we should cut defense, but I've never heard any responsible way to do it without taking us back to the Clinton years. What I mean by that is we for the most part had a military that had no money for training.

We spend more than the next 16 nations.. Either you know nothing about military strategy, or you are extremely susceptible to believe everything you hear... Private contractors, weapons that are no longer useful, aircraft that is being built that hasn't been used since the 1980s. Useless ships. The list is endless.. When many of the higher ups in the military and defense are suggesting areas that cuts can be made, multiply it by 6 or 7 and that's how much can be cut.

And the military has been awesomely trained from 2000-2008.

IF we need to spend more than 16 of the next highest countries to be a "well trained military" WE ARE DOING IT WRONG.. And it is proof of how much money is thrown down the rabbit hole in military spending..

 

[utvol23]

The deficit is not 16 trillion, that's the national debt. The budget deficit is around 1.4 trillion.
And all this talk of "entitlements" specific social programs remind me of a George Charlin quote: "Have you noticed that their stuff is **** and your **** is stuff"
You go the kid who got students loans saying food stamps should stop
The person getting social security arguing against Obamacare
The who was once on welfare complaining about student loans
Everyone hates socialism, except the when socialism works for them
And I agree that all of Bushes tax cuts need to end eventually

Wait so my 300K of student loans that I am paying back at an outrageous interest rate is the same thing as someoone who is getting food stamps but has nothing to repay?
You cannot equate student loans which someone has to pay back with interest to something that someone gets and has nothing to pay back unless all those food stamps have to be repayed with interest when they starting earning.
They are not one in the same

Also are you talking about say a 70 year old receiving soc sec being a form socialism when they had paid into the program for their 40 year working career? I guarentee if they had invested that same money into the stock market appropriately over those 40 years they would have a lot more money than the measley check the govt provides them each month

 

[ccastro02]

Wait so my 300K of student loans that I am paying back at an outrageous interest rate is the same thing as someoone who is getting food stamps but has nothing to repay?
You cannot equate student loans which someone has to pay back with interest to something that someone gets and has nothing to pay back unless all those food stamps have to be repayed with interest when they starting earning.
They are not one in the same

I think he meant pell and state aid. And the interest rate of federal student loans is not "outrageous". They are perhaps the cheapest loans one can get without having good credit. I'm pretty sure the maximum a student can borrow from the federal govt is about 12-15k per year with a maximum of about 60k, not the 300k you've accumulated.

 

[utvol23]

I think he meant pell and state aid. And the interest rate of federal student loans is not "outrageous". They are perhaps the cheapest loans one can get without having good credit. I'm pretty sure the maximum a student can borrow from the federal govt is about 12-15k per year with a maximum of about 60k, not the 300k you've accumulated.

No that is incorret the stafford subsidized and unsubsidized loans are 8500 and 30K respectively then the govt took over private loans too. Also interest rates are 8.5% dropped to like 6.5% when you start paying back where as you can get a home mortgage for under 4% if you dont think that outrageous tell me what is. What 8.5% of 300k per year?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Wait so my 300K of student loans that I am paying back at an outrageous interest rate is the same thing as someoone who is getting food stamps but has nothing to repay?
You cannot equate student loans which someone has to pay back with interest to something that someone gets and has nothing to pay back unless all those food stamps have to be repayed with interest when they starting earning.
They are not one in the same

I NEVER SAID THEY WERE THE SAME. I swear some dudes just read what they want to see.

First off you don't have 300K in Federal student loans. So your private loans you have to pay back at a ****** rate is on you, and only you.

Second, again I never said they were the same, I was making the point that one person that benefits from one social program will talk **** about someone else that benefits from another social program.

Lastly federal student loans and grants for a ton of people is the only way they can afford going to college. And if you look at the difference of the lifetime earning of someone with a college degree than someone with only a high school degree, the added earnings someone would make with a college degree is greater than the loans amount. Hence why college, even with some student loan debt, is still a good investment.

TL,DR: I never said they were the same, and not even anything close to that.

 

[utvol23]

I NEVER SAID THEY WERE THE SAME. I swear some dudes just read what they want to see.
First off you don't have 300K in Federal student loans. So your private loans you have to pay back at a ****** rate is on you, and only you.
Second, again I never said they were the same, I was making the point that one person that benefits from one social program will talk **** about someone else that benefits from another social program.
Lastly federal student loans and grants for a ton of people is the only way they can afford going to college. And if you look at the difference of the lifetime earning of someone with a college degree than someone with only a high school degree, the added earnings someone would make with a college degree is greater than the loans amount. Hence why college, even with some student loan debt, is still a good investment.
TL,DR: I never said they were the same, and not even anything close to that.

Ok first off 255k of my loans are federal loans at 6.8-8.5%~20k of which is private loans at relatively the same rates. Second how are those student loans that I am paying back with tens of thousands interest a social program? I guess a mortgage and a car loan are a social program too.
YOU were the one comparing a person with student loans to someone on food stamps saying they were both social programs. I dont consider it a social program if i have to pay the money back with interest. It is not free money.
If the govt loaned me the money say with no interest just paying back the principal then i could see that being somewhat of a social program but still not anywhere near food stamps where you have nothing to pay back.
Right it is an investment that you have to pay back with INTEREST

If you are going to compare social programs at least compare things that are somewhat comparable food stamps to loans with interest are not even in the same universe.

 

[ccastro02]

No that is incorret the stafford subsidized and unsubsidized loans are 8500 and 30K respectively then the govt took over private loans too. Also interest rates are 8.5% dropped to like 6.5% when you start paying back where as you can get a home mortgage for under 4% if you dont think that outrageous tell me what is. What 8.5% of 300k per year?

The maximum federal subsidized loans you can get is 5500. unsubsidized is 7000, and that's for the year! You can probably get 2000 more if you qualify for some sort of special condition. The maximum you can take throughout your academic tenure s about 60k. All the other loans would have to be private.

And 8.5 is also untrue. There are interest rates as low as 3.4%. I'de say a student who has little to no credit is getting a lot of money for quite a steal.
http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/DirectLoan/calc.html

But my question is how is it possible you received 300k in federal student loans? What school allowed that to happen?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Ok first off 255k of my loans are federal loans at 6.8-8.5%~20k of which is private loans at relatively the same rates. Second how are those student loans that I am paying back with tens of thousands interest a social program? I guess a mortgage and a car loan are a social program too.
YOU were the one comparing a person with student loans to someone on food stamps saying they were both social programs. I dont consider it a social program if i have to pay the money back with interest. It is not free money.
Right it is an investment that you have to pay back with INTEREST

Smh. You can't look past your own experience

So what about federal grants? That's not free money?

Aren't some of your loans subsidized, isn't that money you don't have to pay back?

So you are trying to argue that student loans/grants cost the country nothing?

And read what I wrote again. I was giving examples of people benefiting from one social program complaining about other one. THAT'S IT

You, not me, turned this into a entitlement **** measuring contest. I never compared any two social programs.

-And one last thing, since you swear up and down I made the comparison. Lemme make one now. Just like welfare or food stamps is not a right, being able to get federal student loans and grants from the government is not a right either

And how the hell did you get $250K is federal student loans?

 

[sdswagger86]

***sorry wrong thread 

....

 

[RustyShackleford]

^^^ Strong first post brah

 

[ar guy]

We spend more than the next 16 nations.. Either you know nothing about military strategy, or you are extremely susceptible to believe everything you hear... Private contractors, weapons that are no longer useful, aircraft that is being built that hasn't been used since the 1980s. Useless ships. The list is endless.. When many of the higher ups in the military and defense are suggesting areas that cuts can be made, multiply it by 6 or 7 and that's how much can be cut.
And the military has been awesomely trained from 2000-2008.


IF we need to spend more than 16 of the next highest countries to be a "well trained military" WE ARE DOING IT WRONG.. And it is proof of how much money is thrown down the rabbit hole in military spending..

We also have the second active largest military in the world and we compensate our military better than everyone else so it is to be expected that we spend more than other countries.
Oh, ans I know a little about military strategy. I know for a fact the Army is downsizing and with the war in Afghanistan drawing down I imagine other branches are as well. Most contracting work is under State Department spending. I'm also very curious on what weapon systems we have that are useless and what aircraft that is still being built that was last used in the 1980s. Like I said I know defense cuts need to be made but and are coming but I want to know from a different perspective what are considered responsible cuts. From 2000-2008 we were at war for about 7 years, please explain to me how they were not well trained. Obviously when you're trying to fill the ranks a ****bag slips through but for the most part our military is the greatest military force to ever grace the Earth.

Edit:

Just saw you added a few things. The most broken part of our military is procurement. If we can fix that we can save a good chunk of money but no politician will. They'd rather buy fewer bullets than kill a project in their district. Most of what we spend is on the military is paying or troops. If all we did was pay our military we would still outspend a large portion of the world.

 

[utvol23]

Smh. You can't look past your own experience
So what about federal grants? That's not free money?
Aren't some of your loans subsidized, isn't that money you don't have to pay back?
So you are trying to argue that student loans/grants cost the country nothing?
And read what I wrote again. I was giving examples of people benefiting from one social program complaining about other one. THAT'S IT
You, not me, turned this into a entitlement **** measuring contest. I never compared any two social programs.
-And one last thing, since you swear up and down I made the comparison. Lemme make one now. Just like welfare or food stamps is not a right, being able to get federal student loans and grants from the government is not a right either
And how the hell did you get $250K is federal student loans?

Medical School is expensive. I paid my own way through undergrad with no loans
Subsidized loans does not mean that you dont have to pay the money back it just means that you dont pay interest while in school where as unsub starts accruing interest from the moment its disbursed. and you can only do 8500 sub vs 30k unsub.
Who ever said getting a loan was a right. Its the same as a mortgage or car loan you have to pay it back. You dont benefit from it other than being able to gain the education. Borrowing money at ridiculous interest rates is not a social program IMO.
Getting free money for food is an entitlement.
Trust me the govt isnt losing money loaning me the money