It's Over.
-
00Accord;245550 wrote:
Yeah let's cut the state's income in half. Do you even know what would end up suffering? Education! They were going to take A LOT of money away from funding education. You must be really ignorant to think that this was a good idea!sigh
The state has considerable other income sources apart from state income tax. (That was what Prop #1 was about, btw). WA state as well as a few other states have no income tax. ND has one of the most efficient state governments in the USA. We could get by on much less state income tax. What would suffer is people in government that feel they are entitled to spend tax payer money on their projects.
In terms of funding education -- maybe you haven't been paying attention. I want to end public school in the USA [and replace it with a system of vouchers or at least something run only at the state level].
I definitely do not think "Everyone should go to college", and I am definitely not willing to pay for it. The simple fact of the matter is that most kids don't have any business going to college right out of HS because they mostly want to drink and have a living arrangement where their parents still pay for everything but they don't have to follow any rules.
Side note: guess what happens when you try to make Everyone go to college. The cost goes up. Guess what happens when the government loans Everyone money to go to college. The cost of college AND the cost of money both go up.
That said, I didn't see anything conclusive that said what programs might get cut if there was a reduction in state revenue. The usual whining windbags (i.e. teachers unions) proclaimed doom if they didn't get their state handouts, but that does't mean what they said was accurate.
-
00Ws6TransAm;245547 wrote:
Yes...congratulations!
http://www.obamamustsee.com/holy shit, never saw that one...... not graphic in the least
-
If everyone has a college degree then the exclusivity of having a degree means nothing...it would be the same as a highschool diploma.
-
DaveH;245545 wrote:
It's simple, I listen to the mans words and think about what he is actually saying. Quick example: "I want to give 95% of americans a tax cut". That sounds good right? :icon_scratch: Not. I think we can agree that Obama doesn't intend on giving the top 5% a tax cut, so he is refering to the bottom 95% right? Ok, the next thing to think about is that somewhere between 38%-40% of americans don't currently pay any income tax. So basically what Obama wants to do is give money to this 38%-40% of people for no reason. Where is that money going to come from? Obviously it has to come from the top 5% since everyone else is getting a cut. You can call that re-distributing the wealth, socialism or whatever. Whether the people getting the money are working or lazy, I don't know, I'm sure it's a mix.If you want more examples I can type them up.
That said, maybe I'm worrying needlessly. Maybe he was just saying this stuff to get elected and doesn't have any plan of actually doing any of it. I hope thats the case.
I believe the 95% tax cut is an effort to stimulate the economy by freeing up money to the majority of americans to spend on goods and services. Not an attempt to redistribute wealth or at least blatantly. While this gives the shaft to people making 250K+ it's not a horrible idea. It's a tax cut for 95% and nothing for the 5%. Not a tax cut+tax hike. Or at least that's how I understand it right now, definitely could be wrong. They've enjoyed a tax break the last few years I imagine his thinking might be.
Like you said I imagine also there is or was a lot said that won't happen. If the tax cut does come about I see them as a short term economy fix because I just don't get how you can decrease taxes yet pay our way out of this abyss we call a deficit unless you slash spending enormously. This all has to pass the house/senate yet right? And all of them make big bucks and have friends/contributers that do as well so who knows.
I agree Kirk once they picked Palin that sealed the deal for me as well. That was just retarded.
-
StangerBanger96;245577 wrote:
If everyone has a college degree then the exclusivity of having a degree means nothing...it would be the same as a highschool diploma.Well I think your wording gives away how Obama feels about it. It shouldn't be exclusive, it should be there for all who WANT it. Not everyone is going to want one so everyone will not have one. If that makes any sense let me know because it sounded weird to me.
-
I think what Schulzy is saying is that money shouldn't be a limiting factor on getting into college.
-
00Ws6TransAm;245547 wrote:
Yes...congratulations!
http://www.obamamustsee.com/I dont know how anyone could be pro-choice like that, especially someone running the country.
-
tjamz;245583 wrote:
I think what Schulzy is saying is that money shouldn't be a limiting factor on getting into college.But money is necessarily a limiting factor for Everything.
Life costs money. Pretending like it doesn't, or asserting that it shouldn't means that you're fighting reality.
In the case of democratic social policies, it means stealing money from people that have money at gunpoint (if need be) to give it to those that don't have it.
Here's something you might not realize. Economics isn't the study of money. It's the study of choice. Given a set of resources and future possibilities, how will the relevant actors allocate resources against outcomes?
By making college cost money, and by virtue of the fact that money is a resource that from an individuals perspective could be just as well allocated to other future possibilities, individuals that will derive value from college will tend to spend their money on it, and those that won't derive value will tend to spend their money elsewhere.
The real tragedy is that by making it easy for some people to go to college that shouldn't really be going, the price for everybody goes up. This means that the poorest people who would LOVE to go to college and work thier ass off also pay a higher price. That means that some of them are going to lose out.
-
thrash;245573 wrote:
sighThe state has considerable other income sources apart from state income tax. (That was what Prop #1 was about, btw). WA state as well as a few other states have no income tax. ND has one of the most efficient state governments in the USA. We could get by on much less state income tax. What would suffer is people in government that feel they are entitled to spend tax payer money on their projects.
In terms of funding education -- maybe you haven't been paying attention. I want to end public school in the USA [and replace it with a system of vouchers or at least something run only at the state level].
I definitely do not think "Everyone should go to college", and I am definitely not willing to pay for it. The simple fact of the matter is that most kids don't have any business going to college right out of HS because they mostly want to drink and have a living arrangement where their parents still pay for everything but they don't have to follow any rules.
Side note: guess what happens when you try to make Everyone go to college. The cost goes up. Guess what happens when the government loans Everyone money to go to college. The cost of college AND the cost of money both go up.
That said, I didn't see anything conclusive that said what programs might get cut if there was a reduction in state revenue. The usual whining windbags (i.e. teachers unions) proclaimed doom if they didn't get their state handouts, but that does't mean what they said was accurate.
I'm not referring to more kids going to college. I definitely think not everyone should go to college. But, if you go to any professor at any college campus, they will tell you that the level of education of incoming freshman has significantly dropped. Several of my professors have expressed this to me. This tells me that the quality of k-12 education is pathetic. You wouldn't believe how often some dumbass asks a stupid question and everyone else's time is wasted while a simple concept has to be re-explained. I guess I wasn't aware of your "no public school" plan. There are too many political threads on this site to read. Anyways, because of the level of reform that your plan would probably require, unfortunately we probably won't see that. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that there would be too much opposition.
The ND government is run comparatively well, however any current funding cuts would probably not be good. Considering our state income tax is not burdensome, there is no reason to cut it. In fact, the property tax is a problem. The way things are now, if they cut income tax, they would more than likely raise property taxes. This would be a problem, especially for seniors. While they aren't much affected by income tax, property tax would definitely put a strain on them.
-
Well there should be at least more lower interest student loans available to those who want them. Hell throw in a stipulation you have to maintain a certain GPA to keep qualifying for them. Make money off those wanting an education and they'll be making better money when they're out of college paying more taxes as well (at least in theory). Win-win.
edit: It's occurred to me that I've been commenting a lot on here like I know something sorry if I pissed anyone off and I'll STFU for awhile.
-
tjamz;245553 wrote:
I'm just curious if you have looked at Obama's published plan. I didn't see anything that said "handouts for the lazy" or anything to that affect. While I don't agree with him about raising the top tax brackets rates by 3%, most of the rest of it makes sense to me.I could copy paste the parts that I like, but I will instead post a link to his tax plan and let you tell me the parts that you don't like.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
That sheet is a commercial, not a tax plan. I listen to what he says, and after thinking about what he says I don't like about 90% of what comes out of his mouth. Like I said, hopefully what he says and does are two different things.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Sweet-WRX-Lovin;245635 wrote:
edit: It's occurred to me that I've been commenting a lot on here like I know something sorry if I pissed anyone off and I'll STFU for awhile.It's called debate, it's not pissing anyone off.
its all good. More ideas and points of view are usually interesting to hear.Even tho my point of view is obviously right.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Sweet-WRX-Lovin;245578 wrote:
I believe the 95% tax cut is an effort to stimulate the economy by freeing up money to the majority of americans to spend on goods and services. Not an attempt to redistribute wealth or at least blatantly. While this gives the shaft to people making 250K+ it's not a horrible idea. It's a tax cut for 95% and nothing for the 5%.I don't have a problem with tax cuts, I think tax reduction is a good thing.
But how can it be a tax cut for the 38%-40% of people who currently pay NO taxes? He can't cut their taxes because they don't pay any. He is just going to send them money (I guess you could look at it as buying their vote). That is what I have a problem with.
If he wanted to be truthful, he should be saying "I want to give the middle 55% of the people a tax cut, and since the bottom 40% don't pay taxes, I just want to send them some money.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;245659 wrote:
It's called debate, it's not pissing anyone off. its all good. More ideas and points of view are usually interesting to hear.Even tho my point of view is obviously right.
LoL nice one Dave OMG I almost missed that. Mr. Subliminal has taught you well.
Right on man I just thought I was getting a bit out of hand possibly or at least seeming that way. But what do you mean giving money to the 38-40% with the tax cut/plan?edit: yeah I get ya on the 55% thing, but doesn't 95% sound so much tastier?
-
Sweet-WRX-Lovin;245694 wrote:
LoL nice one Dave OMG I almost missed that. Mr. Subliminal has taught you well. Right on man I just thought I was getting a bit out of hand possibly or at least seeming that way. But what do you mean giving money to the 38-40% with the tax cut/plan?edit: yeah I get ya on the 55% thing, but doesn't 95% sound so much tastier?
I didn't know if anyone would catch that subliminal note......to explain the 38-40% deal:
If you look up statistics on who pays taxes, right now the bottom 38% or so of people in the USA do not pay any taxes. When time comes to do their taxes, if you looked at their tax forms they pay nothing, zero, nada. Since they currently pay nothing, you can not "cut" their taxes. You can't make them pay less than "zero".
So Obama isn't going to give the bottom 38% a "tax cut", since that is impossible.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Sweet-WRX-Lovin;245581 wrote:
Well I think your wording gives away how Obama feels about it. It shouldn't be exclusive, it should be there for all who WANT it. Not everyone is going to want one so everyone will not have one. If that makes any sense let me know because it sounded weird to me.Like was said below me, money is a limiting factor for a reason. The Dem's are the ones who helped push through laws allowing our current banking/housing/mortgage crisis to happen...they should have no problem allowing people making no money to get student loans that will probably never get paid back in order to get into college.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login