Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My question is if the government needs revenue to operate, and we currently operate on a deficit, how will the overall reduction in tax revenue be made up? You can't make up a defecit by reducing income. All those persons and corporations that make over $100,000K to a billion or more will pay substantially less. How does this help the middle class?
Defense spending won't go down, so will federal funding for programs that actually help the middle class will be reduced? As the deficit increases will the value of the dollar shrink in international markets, making all those Chinese and Asian imported goods cost more?
The deficit is my biggest objection to this bill - it is nothing more than precursor to another 2008 crash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobspez
The theory of trickle down economics has worked out as well as the war against drugs. They are both fantasies that only exist in rhetoric.
And, yet, this FAILED theory is the only economic 'growth engine' the GOP espouses. So, we can assume, they are knowingly and intentionally, with full knowledge, undermining the economy and further impoverishing what remains of the middle class to appease their masters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobspez
And when they say economic growth will climb, who are they talking about? The stock market goes up and they say economic growth has increased. But I don't own any stocks, so it doesn't do anything for me. Like the tax plan, that growth is for the well to do. It doesn't raise wages or cut prices. It just funnels more wealth to those that are already well off.
Exactly - in a nutshell. Expect a repeat of 2008.
In preparation for which people would be well-served now live well below their means, pay off debt, develop a substantial emergency fund in anticipation of the inevitable financial calamity.
True but at a private school the TAs hourly rate comes to $25/hr.
Perhaps it does; I haven't done the calculations. But just about all TAs have a part-time workload--usually 25-50% (3-6 hours of classroom time plus a few more hours of prep/grading, etc per week). So if their per hour figure is high, it may be because they are not at full-time. Their primary identity is that of student.
The deficit is my biggest objection to this bill - it is nothing more than precursor to another 2008 crash.
And, yet, this FAILED theory is the only economic 'growth engine' the GOP espouses. So, we can assume, they are knowingly and intentionally, with full knowledge, undermining the economy and further impoverishing what remains of the middle class to appease their masters.
Exactly - in a nutshell. Expect a repeat of 2008.
In preparation for which people would be well-served now live well below their means, pay off debt, develop a substantial emergency fund in anticipation of the inevitable financial calamity.
the 2008 recession was do to liberal policies on home-ownership (the housing bubble started in 1995) and the globalist liberal policies of off shoring jobs
this plan has a chance of reversing the offshoring......that's why liberals hate it
the 2008 crash.... liberal caused
Last edited by workingclasshero; 11-29-2017 at 08:43 PM..
i dont want to pay for your passion, pay for it yourself
Unless you're paying full tuition at a university, you probably wouldn't have to "subsidize" TAs, so no need to worry: the payment of TA tuition is handled internally, and your outside money is not needed to make up any deficits.
And exemption of tuition waivers from taxation is not a "subsidy," in case you were heading in that direction. Tuition waivers are not "income," though some people seem to think it ought to be considered as such.
Lastly, it doesn't matter if the TAs have a "passion" for what they study or not. Though it's probably more productive for people to work in professions and fields that they enjoy, it isn't a requirement, and that's a personal consideration that is largely separate from the employment, training, and educational structures of universities.
the 2008 recession was do to liberal policies on home-ownership (the housing bubble started in 1995) and the globalist liberal policies of off shoring jobs
this plan has a chance of reversing the offshoring......that's why liberals hate it
Continue with your ignorance. It is serving you well in preparing for your future under the bridge.
Doubtful you will be bothered to enhance your knowledge, but on the off-chance you are sincerely interested in your financial well-being and are willing to learn - spend an hour - and concentrate - on this
the 2008 recession was do to liberal policies on home-ownership (the housing bubble started in 1995) and the globalist liberal policies of off shoring jobs
this plan has a chance of reversing the offshoring......that's why liberals hate it
It's not going to do very much about offshoring. The 35% corporate tax rate that the Republicans harp on is more like 12% after all the loopholes and deductions are figured in. When a recession finally comes along and the Republicans start screaming about needing to cut the budget, maybe the military can be cut for a change. Or better yet, why not go back to pre-Reagan tax rates of 70% tax on incomes over a million bucks or 90% capital gains tax rates on capital and dividends over a million. I bet that would raise a few bucks!
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Is it the idea that revenue generated from full-paying undergrads at private schools (for example) should not be used to pay for TAs who lead discussion sections for introductory courses? I don't see that as a subsidy, but rather as using undergrad tuition money for instructional purposes. TAs cost less to employ than professors, so undergrads actually get a deal this way. Otherwise, tuition could be thousands of dollars more.
But perhaps that isn't what you meant.
I'm actually not sure what you're talking about. The cost of waivers and loan write offs are not free, the cost gets passed on to the tax payers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter
This attitude is wrong, because it’s a global economy and other countries are subsidizing it. It puts us at a disadvantage if we don’t. However, we should only be subsidizing fields that we really need — medicine, scientific research, nanotechnology, that kind of stuff.
I actually agree with this, we should support STEM education. I don't want to support history majors or women's racial economics majors that end up as baristas anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
