(04-22-2019 04:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Seems the democrat primary is about who can give away the most "FREE" $hit!
1) Reparations - Most candidates
2) Free Higher Education - Focahontos
3) Free Healthcare/Single Payer - All candidates except Bernie who says we'll tax you to death to pay for it so you don't have to worry about health insurance.
4) Free money for everyone - Yang

The problem is, free ain't free. It's got to come from somewhere. For everybody you help with these things, you've got to hurt someone to pay for it. And that's the part that democrats refuse to address realistically.

(04-22-2019 04:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Seems the democrat primary is about who can give away the most "FREE" $hit!

1) Reparations - Most candidates
2) Free Higher Education - Focahontos
3) Free Healthcare/Single Payer - All candidates except Bernie who says we'll tax you to death to pay for it so you don't have to worry about health insurance.
4) Free money for everyone - Yang

ya had to prod the cattle....

(04-22-2019 12:52 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 12:41 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 12:31 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  But with two children in high school, I am absolutely worried about how we can pay for their college. So maybe think of this as a way to help plan for the future education of your children - if that is something you will have to deal with in the future.

I'm single, no kids. Simple question, why do I have to pay for your kids college education through tax money? I'm already paying a little through the gov handing out loans. Exactly why I should have to shoulder the burden of kids wasting 100,000s of thousands of dollars to work at Starbucks or some other job they dont need a degree for?

Tons of people went to college and found a way to pay for it on their own. I don't agree that this generation suddenly needs everyone to pay for it for them.

My parents didn't pay for my college, I did. My dad got his degree by going through the Army and taking classes.
My brother paid for his degree by himself. My sister and her husband are both paying for their degrees. It's hard on them, but they make it work.

To be fair, I have less of a problem in helping someone to get a degree in Engineering or Biology, etc, because that will eventually help society and thus me. But paying for some kids Art History degree, no. No they can pay for that themselves.

When I said we, I meant my wife and I. I'm not asking for any handouts.

I also had to pay for my college myself, but the tuition my first quarter at UCLA was $450. I had a single mom and she wasn't able to pay any bit of my or my brothers' college costs. My brother and I had to work like dogs in college to make enough to pay for rent and food. But I know that came at a big cost to the time I was able to spend on my studies, so I'm hopeful my wife and I can pay for much of our children's college. They will have to pay for some of it obviously.

I think that was understood.

But let me flip that on it's head a bit-

If your kids get to College age and it's now free, are your going to pay anyway?

It's like the bern and all these other 1%'s running around apologizing for being rich and demanding taxes go up on everyone so they can pay more. When asked point blank, "Why don't you just cut a check?" The response is "Pfffffft, I pay what I legally have to pay" though nothing is preventing him from sending in whatever he wants.

You still going to pay 2019 tuition rates to UCLA (or wherever) if by '22 it's "free"? Serious question, not trying to be a hit job.

I will say this, it's typical of democrats, treat the symptom, student loan debt, not the disease, useless majors that lead to no career opportunities. There are lots of Liberal Arts majors that are worthless, as are some business degrees. For people not interested in higher learning that actually ties into vocations where there are lots of career opportunities, MAYBE community college or vocational school is a better option.

I do notice her debt forgiveness would exclude high income households like doctors who accumulate lots of student loan debt and will end up being the one paying the "RICH PEOPLE" tax to forgive this debt.

Well I started this whole thread by saying I doubt any of this happens. Warren has no chance of getting elected IMO (or at best, 2-3 percent). I don't believe this policy idea will move the needle much for her.

But I do think we're looking at a different scenario. By coincidence I took my children on a campus tour of Rice today, and they have instituted a new financial policy (announced last summer I think?) of completely paying all costs (tuition, room & board) for its students who are coming from families making under 65K a year. They will pay full tuition (46K a year currently) for students from families making between 65 and 130K a year, and half tuition (23K) for students from families between 130K and 200K income.

You're still going to have to get into Rice on your own, but if you do and you come from a low or middle class family, your financial burden is a ton easier than comparable schools.

The point being that schools that can afford it (Rice has 3900 undergraduate students and a $6.2 billion endowment) are going to solve some of the ridiculous costs themselves. And that's fine, as long as these sky-rocketing costs are kept in check somehow.

(04-22-2019 05:34 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Well I started this whole thread by saying I doubt any of this happens. Warren has no chance of getting elected IMO (or at best, 2-3 percent). I don't believe this policy idea will move the needle much for her.

But I do think we're looking at a different scenario. By coincidence I took my children on a campus tour of Rice today, and they have instituted a new financial policy (announced last summer I think?) of completely paying all costs (tuition, room & board) for its students who are coming from families making under 65K a year. They will pay full tuition (46K a year currently) for students from families making between 65 and 130K a year, and half tuition (23K) for students from families between 130K and 200K income.

You're still going to have to get into Rice on your own, but if you do and you come from a low or middle class family, your financial burden is a ton easier than comparable schools.

The point being that schools that can afford it (Rice has 3900 undergraduate students and a $6.2 billion endowment) are going to solve some of the ridiculous costs themselves. And that's fine, as long as these sky-rocketing costs are kept in check somehow.

Most High-end Private Universities have a financial assistance program for those who are admitted but the family has limited financial means. I know Wake Forest through the Reynold's Foundation offers assistance to students from low/middle income families. I guess low income is somewhat geographical, $70k in parts of CA and NY is below poverty level but most flyover states that's middle income.

(04-22-2019 01:46 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 01:43 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 01:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 01:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Sorry I've had no issue paying off my student loans. Neither has my wife. But then again we both went into fields that there is always a need for. (She was a teacher and went back to school for a nursing degree and I have my Construction Management degree).

Would it been easier had it been free, sure... But why forgive loans for the barista at Starbucks that majored in French Literature so they can feel enlightened and refuse to really have a job.

To prevent them from joining antifa and punching you in the streets.

They will still do that as long as the MSM calls everyone nazis.

The argument is that if they are freed of their student debt, they will be able to put money away, buy houses, start families, and hell, become republicans once they start earning and become responsible.

Maybe I'm missing it, or no looking close enough. But how many of these Berkley ninja's are really concerned about their student loans first and foremost? Why did they just pop up in the last few years or so? Why will forgiving something like loans affect their anti-social, criminal activity?

Wouldn't getting rid of the purple or blue hair be the first step in that direction?

(04-22-2019 12:07 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/2...bt-1284286

I like elements of this plan - I doubt it will happen though (primarily because I don't see her getting elected).

The plan apparently will be released in full later tonight but it sounds like it might work out this way.

"The plan would eliminate as much as $50,000 in student loan debt for each person with less than $100,000 in household income. The $50,000 in relief would gradually diminish for people with household incomes between $100,000 and $250,000 ($1 less relief for every $3 earned). People with household income of more than $250,000 would not receive debt cancellation.

She couples the student debt forgiveness with a proposal to eliminate tuition and fees at all two-year and four-year public colleges (which is similar to Bernie Sanders' plan, although her debt cancellation program goes beyond what Sanders has proposed).

ETA - to pay for this plan, she is proposing a 2% tax on assets worth $50m or more with an additional 1% tax on assets worth $1b or more (although that's just assuming the ultra-rich aren't figuring out more tax loopholes to get away from those new taxes)

But here's what I don't get. Why is this something she has to propose only if she gets elected. She may as well try to get elements of this legislation in bill form for the present Senate. It probably would get voted down in the Senate, but perhaps in a modified version, it could pass there.

This is a net worth tax? So, you taxed not only when you earn the money, your taxed annually on your total assets? Pass. That top cap number will fall rapidly once polititions have a new piggy bank filled with money they can give away to buy votes.

“A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse
due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship”

- Alexander Tyler 1787

(04-22-2019 04:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 04:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Seems the democrat primary is about who can give away the most "FREE" $hit!
1) Reparations - Most candidates
2) Free Higher Education - Focahontos
3) Free Healthcare/Single Payer - All candidates except Bernie who says we'll tax you to death to pay for it so you don't have to worry about health insurance.
4) Free money for everyone - Yang

The problem is, free ain't free. It's got to come from somewhere. For everybody you help with these things, you've got to hurt someone to pay for it. And that's the part that democrats refuse to address realistically.

when one party gets whittled down to a null set offering a base of short bus urbanites, I'm not certain how one would expect any other result....

if the leadershite on the right would figure out what DJT has tried to beat into their skull caps, maybe some of the complicated issues would be addressed (e.g. real health care/education solutions)

(04-22-2019 06:28 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  “A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse
due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship”

- Alexander Tyler 1787

words from a sage....

(04-22-2019 05:44 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 01:46 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 01:43 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 01:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 01:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Sorry I've had no issue paying off my student loans. Neither has my wife. But then again we both went into fields that there is always a need for. (She was a teacher and went back to school for a nursing degree and I have my Construction Management degree).

Would it been easier had it been free, sure... But why forgive loans for the barista at Starbucks that majored in French Literature so they can feel enlightened and refuse to really have a job.

To prevent them from joining antifa and punching you in the streets.

They will still do that as long as the MSM calls everyone nazis.

The argument is that if they are freed of their student debt, they will be able to put money away, buy houses, start families, and hell, become republicans once they start earning and become responsible.

Maybe I'm missing it, or no looking close enough. But how many of these Berkley ninja's are really concerned about their student loans first and foremost? Why did they just pop up in the last few years or so? Why will forgiving something like loans affect their anti-social, criminal activity?

Wouldn't getting rid of the purple or blue hair be the first step in that direction?

I was being somewhat facetious about antifa.

The conversation to be had is the cost/benefit of wiping away this debt given that college is in many cases an outright scam that unsuspecting millennials were lied/suckered into, and what it would do for their economic prospects, social cohesion, birth rates, long term health of social programs (medicare, medicaid, social security), etc.

Millennials (and generations after them) could bring this country to it’s knees if nothing is done.

Hey, Liz, while you're at it, why not just "cancel" all US debt? hey, even better than that, why not just "cancel" all US credit debt for everyone, y'know, to be "fair" to everyone? To hell with contracts and agreements...after all, people can agree to be married for "life" and until death, better or worse, richer or poorer, and people already walk away from that agreement by the millions, so what difference does it make, as someone famously said? (who was that now....?)

(04-22-2019 07:03 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 05:44 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 01:46 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 01:43 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 01:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  To prevent them from joining antifa and punching you in the streets.

They will still do that as long as the MSM calls everyone nazis.

The argument is that if they are freed of their student debt, they will be able to put money away, buy houses, start families, and hell, become republicans once they start earning and become responsible.

Maybe I'm missing it, or no looking close enough. But how many of these Berkley ninja's are really concerned about their student loans first and foremost? Why did they just pop up in the last few years or so? Why will forgiving something like loans affect their anti-social, criminal activity?

Wouldn't getting rid of the purple or blue hair be the first step in that direction?

I was being somewhat facetious about antifa.

The conversation to be had is the cost/benefit of wiping away this debt given that college is in many cases an outright scam that unsuspecting millennials were lied/suckered into, and what it would do for their economic prospects, social cohesion, birth rates, long term health of social programs (medicare, medicaid, social security), etc.

Millennials (and generations after them) could bring this country to it’s knees if nothing is done.

it's already happen(ing)ed....

I've said it too many times.....once you spoil the tyke, it becomes unrecoverable w/o suffering some semblance of pain....

the One Minute Manager can fill ya in on the hypothetical details....

(04-22-2019 07:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Hey, Liz, while you're at it, why not just "cancel" all US debt? hey, even better than that, why not just "cancel" all US credit debt for everyone, y'know, to be "fair" to everyone? To hell with contracts and agreements...after all, people can agree to be married for "life" and until death, better or worse, richer or poorer, and people already walk away from that agreement by the millions, so what difference does it make, as someone famously said? (who was that now....?)

This is a losing argument. Come up with real solutions, or enjoy the coming socialism.

(04-22-2019 06:43 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 06:28 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  “A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse
due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship”

- Alexander Tyler 1787

words from a sage....

Here's another good one in the same vein.

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize
they can bribe the people with their own money."

- Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)

Can someone tell me what happened to going to college and living at home? I know every student doesn't have a 4 year institution in their community but most at least have CCs. If you work part-time during the school year and full time during the summer and live at home you can still earn enough to pay your way through public CC or public 4 year U.

And don't say this can't be done nowadays....

My niece just did this. She worked 25 hours a week as a baker at DDs from 4am-8am weekdays and worked a full day on Saturday during school semesters. She worked full-time in the summer and picked up extra shifts when she could. She started there making $10 an hour and her senior year she was making around $14 an hour. She paid her tuition, fees and books as she went. She drove an older sedan that wasn't fancy but she kept it running. She still uses the same phone and laptop that she got as a HS grad presents.

She just graduated debt-free from UC with a BS in science majoring in biology and has a job waiting for her as a lab assistant with the opportunity for the company she works for to pay for her masters.

I used to agree with Tyler and thought that Obama was going to become that dictator, or maybe the next one. Now I see it's going to take a lot longer and that in the process this country is going to be bled dry.

(04-22-2019 07:59 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Can someone tell me what happened to going to college and living at home? I know every student doesn't have a 4 year institution in their community but most at least have CCs. If you work part-time during the school year and full time during the summer and live at home you can still earn enough to pay your way through public CC or public 4 year U.

And don't say this can't be done nowadays....

My niece just did this. She worked 25 hours a week as a baker at DDs from 4-8 weekdays and worked a full day on Saturday during school semesters. She worked full-time in the summer and picked up extra shifts when she could. She started their making $10 an hour and her senior year she was making around $14 an hour. She paid her tuition, fees and books as she went. She drove an older sedan that wasn't fancy but she kept it running. She still uses the same phone and laptop that she got as a HS grad presents.

She just graduated debt-free from UC with a BS in science majoring in biology and has a job waiting for her as a lab assistant with the opportunity for the company she works for to pay for her masters.

Because idiots try to live vicariously through their kids much like they do with sports...

Parents want their kids to have the college experience.... efffff that.

My oldest who is a senior in high school got a full academic ride and wanted me to pay for living on campus. Ummmm nope.

Hell, living on campus for the year cost more than tuition and books.

I told her if she lived at home id give her 5k for every successful college year. If she graduated in 4 years id give her an additional 5k for a total of 25k cash when she gets done with undergrad.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

(04-22-2019 08:41 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 07:59 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Can someone tell me what happened to going to college and living at home? I know every student doesn't have a 4 year institution in their community but most at least have CCs. If you work part-time during the school year and full time during the summer and live at home you can still earn enough to pay your way through public CC or public 4 year U.

And don't say this can't be done nowadays....

My niece just did this. She worked 25 hours a week as a baker at DDs from 4-8 weekdays and worked a full day on Saturday during school semesters. She worked full-time in the summer and picked up extra shifts when she could. She started their making $10 an hour and her senior year she was making around $14 an hour. She paid her tuition, fees and books as she went. She drove an older sedan that wasn't fancy but she kept it running. She still uses the same phone and laptop that she got as a HS grad presents.

She just graduated debt-free from UC with a BS in science majoring in biology and has a job waiting for her as a lab assistant with the opportunity for the company she works for to pay for her masters.

Because idiots try to live vicariously through their kids much like they do with sports...

Parents want their kids to have the college experience.... efffff that.

My oldest who is a senior in high school got a full academic ride and wanted me to pay for living on campus. Ummmm nope.

Hell, living on campus for the year cost more than tuition and books.

I told her if she lived at home id give her 5k for every successful college year. If she graduated in 4 years id give her an additional 5k for a total of 25k cash when she gets done with undergrad.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Sometimes tough love is the best kind of love.