Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
You're doing this on purpose, you can't actually be this dumb. If you add on what you spend on health insurance, daycare and education and what you pay for a decent pension to retire on to your tax bill then you'll discover that you're currently paying as much or more than Finnish people are for the services they get. And they get much better services than you do. What part of this don't you understand?
Also, too. You don't have a high corporate tax rate in America. The stated rate is high but nobody pays that. Over two-thirds of corporations don't pay corporation tax at all :
StoneMor Partners LP, the publicly traded firm that specializes in running cemeteries, expects to see handsome profits in coming years as baby boomers age and die. But unlike its largest rivals, its corporate tax bill from the federal government will be zero. StoneMor is among the many businesses organized so they don’t pay a penny in federal corporate income tax. And yet such firms don’t employ an army of accountants to shield profits in complex tax shelters. Their enviable tax position is perfectly legal and has been encouraged by Congress and state governments. Known as pass-throughs, these firms pass along profits to investors who pay taxes on those sums through their individual returns. This exception has been around for decades, and has been broadened repeatedly in recent years as a way to spur entrepreneurship. Millions of small businesses have organized this way, but so too have some behemoths like private-equity giant Blackstone Group LP, construction firm Bechtel Group Inc. and pipeline firm Kinder Morgan. The percentage of U.S. corporations organized as nontaxable businesses has grown from about 24% in 1986 to about 69% as of 2008, according to the latest-available Internal Revenue Service data. The percentage of all firms is far higher when partnerships and sole proprietors are included. Old-line U.S. public companies generally remain taxable, and many complain that they must pay higher effective rates than foreign competitors. They are eagerly seeking a cut in the 35% U.S. corporate-tax rate, now one of the highest in the world. But increasingly they find themselves at odds politically with the growing breed of nontaxable firms.
More U.S. Businesses Enjoy Tax-Free Status - WSJ.com
And the top 1% make as much as the bottom 50%. You just can't run an economy like that for any length of time without it fucking up as you're now finding out. And your reaction as you watch these guys rob your bank in front of your eyes is to run after them saying "wait, you dropped a bag of money, here, take it with you!"
Health insurance, daycare, & education ARE NOT RIGHTS it's just another attempted overextension of the Federal Government that I don't want. You love the idea of a cradle to grave socialist state, I don't. I want to make my own way, I want to do things without help or dependency on the government, why? Because that's how America was built....maybe you don't comprehend that, but America is and always should be a nation of rugged individualism.
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
The state support went down as a percentage but not as a value. Since some portions increased making the pie bigger somer parts decreased as a percent. I shouldn't have to explain fractions to you. The states have never used federal money to fund universities and colleges, so how much money they are getting from the feds now or then for other programs is irrelevant and even if this was the case it wouldn't be an across the board effect b/c as I mentioned earlier when I did address this point each state would deal with it uniquely.
Tuition has seen a spike in relation to the subsidies hence this entire thread.
Image Detail for - College_tuition_Graph
Pack it in Kirk. You got owned on this one.
Great, we agree state support went down as a percentage of total funding. So now we're arguing over whether cuts in federal funding to states caused states to cut funding to state universities. If it wasn't federal cuts in state aid that caused states to cut university funding, what was it?
Your own graph shows a huge spike in federal sunsidies for higher education since 2000. Total subsidies increased more than fourfold. So how come tuition costs didn't increase fourfold in the same time period? Tuition costs kept on increasing at a slightly higher rate than the pre-2000 rate but there was no dramatic spike as a reult of the fourfold increase in subsidies. Why not? Doesn't this show that there's no relation between tuition fees and federal subsidies of higher education? If not, why not?
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
You're doing this on purpose, you can't actually be this dumb. If you add on what you spend on health insurance, daycare and education and what you pay for a decent pension to retire on to your tax bill then you'll discover that you're currently paying as much or more than Finnish people are for the services they get. And they get much better services than you do. What part of this don't you understand?
Also, too. You don't have a high corporate tax rate in America. The stated rate is high but nobody pays that. Over two-thirds of corporations don't pay corporation tax at all :
StoneMor Partners LP, the publicly traded firm that specializes in running cemeteries, expects to see handsome profits in coming years as baby boomers age and die. But unlike its largest rivals, its corporate tax bill from the federal government will be zero. StoneMor is among the many businesses organized so they don’t pay a penny in federal corporate income tax. And yet such firms don’t employ an army of accountants to shield profits in complex tax shelters. Their enviable tax position is perfectly legal and has been encouraged by Congress and state governments. Known as pass-throughs, these firms pass along profits to investors who pay taxes on those sums through their individual returns. This exception has been around for decades, and has been broadened repeatedly in recent years as a way to spur entrepreneurship. Millions of small businesses have organized this way, but so too have some behemoths like private-equity giant Blackstone Group LP, construction firm Bechtel Group Inc. and pipeline firm Kinder Morgan. The percentage of U.S. corporations organized as nontaxable businesses has grown from about 24% in 1986 to about 69% as of 2008, according to the latest-available Internal Revenue Service data. The percentage of all firms is far higher when partnerships and sole proprietors are included. Old-line U.S. public companies generally remain taxable, and many complain that they must pay higher effective rates than foreign competitors. They are eagerly seeking a cut in the 35% U.S. corporate-tax rate, now one of the highest in the world. But increasingly they find themselves at odds politically with the growing breed of nontaxable firms.
More U.S. Businesses Enjoy Tax-Free Status - WSJ.com
And the top 1% make as much as the bottom 50%. You just can't run an economy like that for any length of time without it fucking up as you're now finding out. And your reaction as you watch these guys rob your bank in front of your eyes is to run after them saying "wait, you dropped a bag of money, here, take it with you!"
Health insurance, daycare, & education
ARE NOT RIGHTS it's just another attempted overextension of the Federal Government that I don't want. You love the idea of a cradle to grave socialist state, I don't. I want to make my own way, I want to do things without help or dependency on the government, why? Because that's how America was built....maybe you don't comprehend that, but America is and always should be a nation of rugged individualism.
We're not arguing over whether America should be socialist or not, we're arguing over whether Americans or Finns get better value for the money they pay to the government/private sector for services. And you don't want to continue that argument for some reason.
But how can you argue that America "is and always should be a nation of rugged individualism. ?
America has a socialist retirement/social insurance programme and more than half the healthcare system is socialist. Both these programmes redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the not so wealthy. And both programmes are very popular with American people. So clearly Americans love them a bit of socialism, no?
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
We're not arguing over whether America should be socialist or not, we're arguing over whether Americans or Finns get better value for the money they pay to the government/private sector for services. And you don't want to continue that argument for some reason.
But how can you argue that America "is and always should be a nation of rugged individualism. ?
America has a socialist retirement/social insurance programme and more than half the healthcare system is socialist. Both these programmes redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the not so wealthy. And both programmes are very popular with American people. So clearly Americans love them a bit of socialism, no?
Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid are going to hit a bubble as the Baby Boomers continue to age. We'll have more people taking out than we'll have putting in to those socialist programs and what will happen then?
I've been planning to not have to depend on social security because I'm not naive enough to think it will still be there when I'm ready to retire.
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
The state support went down as a percentage but not as a value. Since some portions increased making the pie bigger somer parts decreased as a percent. I shouldn't have to explain fractions to you. The states have never used federal money to fund universities and colleges, so how much money they are getting from the feds now or then for other programs is irrelevant and even if this was the case it wouldn't be an across the board effect b/c as I mentioned earlier when I did address this point each state would deal with it uniquely.
Tuition has seen a spike in relation to the subsidies hence this entire thread.
Image Detail for - College_tuition_Graph
Pack it in Kirk. You got owned on this one.
Great, we agree state support went down as a percentage of total funding. So now we're arguing over whether cuts in federal funding to states caused states to cut funding to state universities. If it wasn't federal cuts in state aid that caused states to cut university funding, what was it?
Your own graph shows a huge spike in federal sunsidies for higher education since 2000. Total subsidies increased more than fourfold. So how come tuition costs didn't increase fourfold in the same time period? Tuition costs kept on increasing at a slightly higher rate than the pre-2000 rate but there was no dramatic spike as a reult of the fourfold increase in subsidies. Why not? Doesn't this show that there's no relation between tuition fees and federal subsidies of higher education? If not, why not?
Your shucking and jiving here is amusing. The tuition graph shows roughly an 80% (I'm just eye balling it) increase from 2000-2007.The federal spending increased during the time period for loans, grants etc went from around 10 billion to around 20 billion. Now I don't claim to be smart enough to tell you what $1 dollar of subsidy does to $1 of price and I can't tell you exactly what percent the price of tuition is beating inflation by but those graphs show correlation between tuition increases and loan/grant money. You can argue that it isn't causation if you want but as of yet you can't back up your point with any correlation at all. State funding went down as a percent but up as an actual amount (237m- 318m). This point is some what moot b/c other means of funding went from 162 million to 1 billion. So whatever percent the state decreased by was more than made up for. At the end of the day it is a market that is highly subsidized and the price has beat inflation for a lengthy period of time. You can talk about other contributing factors till you are blue in the face but you can't ignore the role the proliferation of student loans has played in the escalating price.
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
Your shucking and jiving here is amusing. The tuition graph shows roughly an 80% (I'm just eye balling it) increase from 2000-2007.The federal spending increased during the time period for loans, grants etc went from around 10 billion to around 20 billion. Now I don't claim to be smart enough to tell you what $1 dollar of subsidy does to $1 of price and I can't tell you exactly what percent the price of tuition is beating inflation by but those graphs show correlation between tuition increases and loan/grant money. You can argue that it isn't causation if you want but as of yet you can't back up your point with any correlation at all. State funding went down as a percent but up as an actual amount (237m- 318m). This point is some what moot b/c other means of funding went from 162 million to 1 billion. So whatever percent the state decreased by was more than made up for. At the end of the day it is a market that is highly subsidized and the price has beat inflation for a lengthy period of time. You can talk about other contributing factors till you are blue in the face but you can't ignore the role the proliferation of student loans has played in the escalating price.
http://cuddlebuggery.com/wp-content/.../08/Ballin.png
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
So how's thing's going Lyle? You got your self prepared for having another 4 years of that black messiah Barack Obama as your Supreme Overlord yet? :-\
Don't lose hope. Get out there Tuesday and vote my comrade. Heck, vote twice, three times. But know this, when Mittens does lose and he most certainly will, be strong my friend. Know that your neighbors and the global community will always have your back. Not your beliefs, but your back. If you ever need a new home...we'll be happy to arrange something with France for you.
As always, peace and good will, and global warming, your friend,
Youngblood
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
All I have to say is this, big government and more spending won't solve all or even most of the social ills in American society, just something I learn not in the classroom on a college campus, but from life experience. There will always be the haves and have nots in life, whether it be by circimstance, work ethic, talents, whatever deficiency, it is foolish to try and have the government remedy it.
That is all.
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
The last thing I will add to this thread is this funny gif.
http://gifsoup.com/view/508641/dick-riding-obama-o.gif
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
All I have to say is this, big government and more spending won't solve all or even most of the social ills in American society, just something I learn not in the classroom on a college campus, but from life experience. There will always be the haves and have nots in life, whether it be by circimstance, work ethic, talents, whatever deficiency, it is foolish to try and have the government remedy it.
That is all.
It's funny how some people, in the "middle class" for example, have never had a problem finding a good job their entire lives, while others from the middle class and on down can never seem to keep or find job. I'm convinced that much success or failure we have in life, is hereditary/genetic and what isn't is learned. I've never accepted a red-cent from the U.S. Gov in the way of welfare or any other form of entitlement, and neither has any member of my family. Getting something for free, or not working for it, has never been an option.
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
The state support went down as a percentage but not as a value. Since some portions increased making the pie bigger somer parts decreased as a percent. I shouldn't have to explain fractions to you. The states have never used federal money to fund universities and colleges, so how much money they are getting from the feds now or then for other programs is irrelevant and even if this was the case it wouldn't be an across the board effect b/c as I mentioned earlier when I did address this point each state would deal with it uniquely.
Tuition has seen a spike in relation to the subsidies hence this entire thread.
Image Detail for - College_tuition_Graph
Pack it in Kirk. You got owned on this one.
Great, we agree state support went down as a percentage of total funding. So now we're arguing over whether cuts in federal funding to states caused states to cut funding to state universities. If it wasn't federal cuts in state aid that caused states to cut university funding, what was it?
Your own graph shows a huge spike in federal sunsidies for higher education since 2000. Total subsidies increased more than fourfold. So how come tuition costs didn't increase fourfold in the same time period? Tuition costs kept on increasing at a slightly higher rate than the pre-2000 rate but there was no dramatic spike as a reult of the fourfold increase in subsidies. Why not? Doesn't this show that there's no relation between tuition fees and federal subsidies of higher education? If not, why not?
Your shucking and jiving here is amusing. The tuition graph shows roughly an 80% (I'm just eye balling it) increase from 2000-2007.The federal spending increased during the time period for loans, grants etc went from around 10 billion to around 20 billion. Now I don't claim to be smart enough to tell you what $1 dollar of subsidy does to $1 of price and I can't tell you exactly what percent the price of tuition is beating inflation by but those graphs show correlation between tuition increases and loan/grant money. You can argue that it isn't causation if you want but as of yet you can't back up your point with any correlation at all. State funding went down as a percent but up as an actual amount (237m- 318m). This point is some what moot b/c other means of funding went from 162 million to 1 billion. So whatever percent the state decreased by was more than made up for. At the end of the day it is a market that is highly subsidized and the price has beat inflation for a lengthy period of time. You can talk about other contributing factors till you are blue in the face but you can't ignore the role the proliferation of student loans has played in the escalating price.
The tuition graph shows an increase from ten billion to forty three billion. In five years. So why isn't there a similar spike in subsidies?
And yes, the amount of money has increased. But not as much as inflation. If funding had kept steady at 1984 levels (and it'd already been slashed under the first few years of the Reagan administration) then in 2011 state funding would have been $513 million. Instead it was just $318 million. And again, the massive increase in student loans are something that started only after college became so expensive. You've got the chicken coming in front of the egg.
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
We're not arguing over whether America should be socialist or not, we're arguing over whether Americans or Finns get better value for the money they pay to the government/private sector for services. And you don't want to continue that argument for some reason.
But how can you argue that America "is and always should be a nation of rugged individualism. ?
America has a socialist retirement/social insurance programme and more than half the healthcare system is socialist. Both these programmes redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the not so wealthy. And both programmes are very popular with American people. So clearly Americans love them a bit of socialism, no?
Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid are going to hit a bubble as the Baby Boomers continue to age. We'll have more people taking out than we'll have putting in to those socialist programs and what will happen then?
I've been planning to not have to depend on social security because I'm not naive enough to think it will still be there when I'm ready to retire.
It'll be there when you're ready to retire. The fact you don't think it will be is a victory for the Wall Street people who are trying to create the impression it won't be so they can get their hands on the nation's retirement funds. Whether you manage to make enough money to not need it, the fact is that it's the main or only source of retirement income for well over three quarters of Americans. Half of all Americans don't even have five hundred dollars in savings.
And again, you're changing the subject. America loves its socialist programmes and if they were organised better they'd be affordable for the long term and much better quality than the current system.
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
You seem to be having graph reading issues. You are also fixating on the tuition portion of that graph and ignoring the increase in other areas of funding. Lastly you don't seem to understand the meaning of the question "What came first? The chicken or the egg?". Maybe you meant to say I had the cart in front of the horse?
Re: Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
You seem to be having graph reading issues. You are also fixating on the tuition portion of that graph and ignoring the increase in other areas of funding. Lastly you don't seem to understand the meaning of the question "What came first? The chicken or the egg?". Maybe you meant to say I had the cart in front of the horse?
No, I'm not the one with the comprehension problems.
