1. The SDN iPhone App is back and free through November! Get it today and please post a review on the App Store!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice

Congress Plans to Eliminate Subsidized Stafford Loans for Graduate School

Discussion in 'Psychology [Psy.D. / Ph.D.]' started by roubs, Jul 27, 2011.

  1. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
  2. Note: SDN Members do not see this ad.

  3. 2012PhD

    2012PhD Psychology Resident

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Another reason not to go for unfunded programs. Now that the tea party is dominating, there will be more of this to come. Imagine having your PsyD loans accumulating for 6 years while you are in training? Yikes.

    Btw, universities are free in Germany and way way cheaper in most developed countries (e.g. Canada, Scotland, EU countries). My friend who studied at McGill paid 1/3 what she would have paid in a U.S. university. We should be encouraging prospective applicants to go out of the country for training!
     
  4. edieb

    edieb Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    72
    I really think it is a good idea to eliminate these loans. Schools are really taking advantage of the student loan system by raising tuition to the maximum amount prospective students can get loans for, taking more and more students to increase profits, etc.

    In addition, some students' choice of degree is very poor and the likelihood they will default on student loans later is high. I don't want to subsidize a student choosing to receive their Ph.D. in anthropology or literature seeing that there are no jobs for majors with these degrees.
     
  5. erg923

    erg923 Regional Clinical Officer, Cenpatico National
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,564
    Likes Received:
    3,153
    Status:
    Psychologist
    I'm think my wife and I are going to run all our credit cards up to their limit...and when we can't pay those, I'm going to insist the banks increase my credit limit. Now, where in the world would I get this idea from? :laugh:
     
    #4 erg923, Jul 27, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2011
  6. cara susanna

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,397
    Likes Received:
    1,562
    Status:
    Psychologist
    I hope this makes professional schools take a hit.
     
  7. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Politicians including Obama are morons for pushing this comparison of the United States of America to your own household. A comparison with good face validity and no other kind.
     
  8. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    I wouldn't mind if this makes professional students be more realistic about loans. Even as liberal I feel like Psy.D. students relying on IBR to cover them is gaming the system at the expense of the taxpayer. This should be a wakeup call to any professional students who think they can just rely on IBR to save them. Subsidized stafford: Here today, gone tomorrow. IBR, next?

    It is still bass ackwards in terms of budget priorities.
     
  9. PerhapsMaybeOk

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    7
    luckily im almost done. and apple stock just topped 400 so...:thumbup:
     
  10. thepug

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow easy for you to say Mr. 5+ member. What about people just about to start a program? The gov has already started targeting career colleges because of the high default rates, if anything the problem is already correcting itself. To get rid of subsidized loans would add another 25k to a clinical students bottom line after 5 years.

    Both sides want to take this money and put it directly into Pell Grants so minority/low income students can get degrees in African American Studies and Advertising, degrees with ridiculously low employment rates post-grad. What the hell. In 50 years when half the U.S. population is not White the gov will look really silly for conducting this indignant social experiment.

    Apparently if some occupying conquistador sir named Rodriguez broke into your great great great great Central American grandmother's clay hut 500 years ago and raped her YOU get a Pell Grant. I'm sorry I just don't see a significant difference between an Anglo American and a Hispanic American.

    Just because one can speak broken Spanish learned from their early childhood and recognizes some esoteric dish at a Mexican restaurant does not really imply diversity. Diversity is a Russian, Chinese, Pakistani, or Jewish student. A Mexican ex-patriot, diverse? You Bet!
     
    #9 thepug, Jul 27, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2011
  11. erg923

    erg923 Regional Clinical Officer, Cenpatico National
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,564
    Likes Received:
    3,153
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Thank you for educating me on the black and white nature of "diversity." You might wanna tone-down the racism before you get banned.
     
    #10 erg923, Jul 27, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2011
  12. thepug

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    What the African American Studies bit? How is that racist? It's a popular major among minorities and it was clearly for comedic effect and it being paired with Advertising implies the point was that these majors are those which have created the gov's desire to get rid of subsidized loans, first at the graduate level. As for the other bit, that's history muchachito.

    I don't see any element of supremacy in my post, if anything I said two "races" were equivalent.

    My gripe is with aid going to people on the basis of gov defined race and not exclusively financial need. This is relevant because this is related to the motion to do away with sub. loans.

    Offending your obtuse sympathies does not imply the message was racist. Calling me a racist however...hurts my feelings :(

    As for the warning about being banned...oh definitely. Yo concordo plenamente contigo.

    Certainly coming for a different family background is diversity, but I find much more diversity among international students. Why? Because they come from a different universe.
     
    #11 thepug, Jul 27, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2011
  13. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    In my parents generation growing up working class and going to undergrad meant being scoffed at by the entire neighborhood because you were clearly doing something useless instead of working with your hands and getting a real paycheck at age 18.

    Just because the humanities are over saturated (as we are) does not give you an excuse to mock people for wanting to go there. The Ph.D. level professions should start being tough and honest about gatekeeping instead of thinking of cheap TA labor and keeping their own heads in the sand about market forces.

    Oh and I can understand the "Well I'm done, phew." response but honestly that attitude is what keeps stuff like the internship crisis going. People barely squeak by, things keep getting worse and once we get through it we lose all empathy and willingness to act on behalf of the people about to inherit the ****storm.
     
  14. thepug

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sigh... Humanities tend to be more popular among minority students, specifically public policy (http://blackbloggers.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/study-shows-college-majors-are-segregated-by-race/)

    These majors have sig. unemployment and significantly lower earning potential than some science majors. Is that not what this whole spending cut is trying to prevent? But lets not forget that mechanical and nuclear engineering also suffer from high unemployment. Contrary to popular opinion, people with English Lit degrees actually have better employment chances than people with a B.S. in chem according to the Daily Beast.

    The problem is colleges and universities putting out 80k students a year for a field that maybe has 70k total spots at any given time, most all of which occupied. Undergrad is like high school now.

    This whole spending cut is really a strong statement. The gov is now openly devaluing the humanities, something they have been doing with disproportionate grant funding for decades now.
     
    #13 thepug, Jul 27, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2011
  15. thepug

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh and I can understand the "Well I'm done, phew." response but honestly that attitude is what keeps stuff like the internship crisis going. People barely squeak by, things keep getting worse and once we get through it we lose all empathy and willingness to act on behalf of the people about to inherit the ****storm.[/QUOTE]

    HU-MAN NA-TURE *clap!......clap!.....clap! clap! clap!*

    I got **** to do yo!
     
  16. KillerDiller

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    51
    Status:
    Post Doc
    The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the opposite is true and that students looking at the traditional route will be the ones who are dissuaded from entering the field :(. We all know that even at fully-funded institutions, some students need to take out loans to cover living expenses. These are the students who would normally get by with taking out the 8K in subsidized funds per year or less. Throughout the course of their graduate career, the difference in having this money interest-free and having the interest accrue is fairly dramatic. On the other hand, to students who are already maxing out loans in order to pay for a professional school, the added interest is just a drop in the bucket. I'm not sure the extra cost is going to dissuade anyone who is already willing to go into that much debt for the degree. However, it may cause a greater proportion to default, which is not what the government intends.

    I get why the legislation is being proposed, I'm just not sure that it's a good thing from the student perspective.
     
  17. Buzzwordsoldier

    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    6
    Status:
    Psychology Student

    Gaming the system...right. The cost of providing social services is borne by many but disproportionately by students taking out big loans to pay for the chance to work for free (practica and often internship) for four+ years. Anyone wishing the prof schools take a hit better be prepared to explain who they fantasize will be stepping into the breach.
     
  18. 2012PhD

    2012PhD Psychology Resident

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Psychologist
    A PhD or PsyD from a professional school (like argosy) is not a marketable degree either. We don't know where these grads end up, but we do know that the majority of them take UNPAID internships and probably UNPAID post-docs or can't get hours for licensure.
     
  19. 2012PhD

    2012PhD Psychology Resident

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    1
    Status:
    Psychologist
    What breach are you referring to? Last time I checked internships and practica are over saturated. 200 plus applicants for a handful of spots is not uncommon to see.....

    Even on the practica level, things are seriously competitive at big name hospitals.
     
  20. aequitasveritas

    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    9
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Supply & Demand:any time a market must be competetive to the worker (even unpaid intern) then they must provide increased incentive. The upside of a possible financial aid fall-out is that less students in the field means no more slave labor for the undfunded internships.
     
  21. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Are you really defending Psy.D. programs choice to admit 100 students a class by saying at least they provide a bunch of free practicum labor? They didn't start admitting 100 students to meet a demand for services, they did it to line their own pockets.
     
  22. Therapist4Chnge

    Therapist4Chnge Neuropsych Ninja Faculty
    Faculty Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    21,375
    Likes Received:
    2,284
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Reform in the university system is needed, not just in psychology. Cracking down on student loans is a good first step, but out of control tuition hikes and predatory advertising also needs to be addressed.
     
  23. aagman01

    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    hey genius........got news for you......pell grants are not race based. im white....from a low income family....and had one throughout college. based on your racist responses and overall ignorant tone i am going to make the assumption your in a professional school and afraid of losing the subsidized loans you need to attend a doctoral program. i will end my response here, and wish you good riddance.....

     
  24. Buzzwordsoldier

    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    6
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    The motive that launched the pro school movement is by now irrelevant -- communities make ample use of the free labor. As for the comment that there is competition for high flight practica sites, in some cases competition that's every bit as fierce as the high profile degree programs themselves -- should it be any different? After all, folks here seem to be all for meritocracy.

    In any case, the point remains -- un/underpaid students are subsidizing services the public could (AND SHOULD) be funding otherwise. Here in the Bay Area, there seems ample need for each and every one of the student hours supplied.

    Lastly -- FWIW, not all PsyD programs, not even all FSPS PsyD programs, accept 100 students.
     
  25. Buzzwordsoldier

    5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    6
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    So...what's your excuse for the unfounded deduction?
     
  26. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    I'm not questioning the motive that "launched the pro school movement" -- but the one that launched their class sizes into the sky. It should be examined, called out, and the problem should be addressed in a serious way by APA(yeah--I know the chances of this). Obviously the public should be funding services. Allowing this glut of free labor to become the new norm will help this situation how?

    Regardless of what good free practicum students do, the fact remains that the market is unable to absorb all these graduates when they actually graduate and enter the labor force. They are duping the bottom half of their huge cohorts into thinking they are on a viable career path. The good that students do at their sites doesn't excuse fraud.
     
  27. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    FYI, this isn't "cracking down on student loans" this is a shifting of greater burden onto graduate students. It reflects the priorities of our elected leaders who are allergic to the idea of asking more from the truly wealthy but more than comfortable slashing and burning programs like Stafford loans that benefit middle class and poor people.
     
  28. aagman01

    2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    sticks and stones my friend........and your absolutely right about the unfounded portion of my comment.....
     
  29. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    400
    Im sorry, but that's just not the problem. There isn't enough money in the wealthy class to cover everyone else. ~47% of able bodied Americans did not pay income taxes last year. Of them, many received earned income tax credits (this is basically a transfer of tax payments from someone else to someone else). Revenue is relatively high despite the high number of free loaders. However, spending is out of control, in my opinion due to extreme inefficiency and, basically, bureaucracy. I work in a VA as well as a university. We were visited by 39 different government agencies in the past year to audit us for various things. 39. And yet they talk about slashing research budgets, student loan programs, veterans benefits, defaulting on debt, SS (which they've stolen the money from repeatedly, huge pyramid scam), etc. . . It's crap. Kill the red tape. Stop with the redistribution of wealth via tax programs (WILL NEVER WORK). Redesign social programs to encourage people to work. Stop illegal immigration and the burden on our public school and medical systems. Have everyone pay into the system. Then, let's see where we stand.
     
  30. Ollie123

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,667
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Status:
    Psychology Student
    Agreed Jon. All the while our bloated defense budget remains relatively untouchable....'cause after all, who needs educated people, as long as we are smart enough to beat up others?

    I'm all for trimming some fat from the budget, but the DoD is the first place I'd be looking, whereas cutting VA benefits seems to be one of the only areas even being considered for cuts (and within the defense budget...that's one of the last things I'd want to cut!). With our current trajectory I am increasingly considering fleeing the US for someplace less hellbent on self-destruction after graduation...Europe seems nice enough, and I'm always up for exploring new places.

    I'm not sure this is the best answer, though we do certainly need some reform to the educational loan system. The notion that a few community agencies have come to rely on free labor from students is, frankly, a miserable excuse to continue the current system from both a fiscal standpoint, and a professional/psychological one.
     
    #29 Ollie123, Jul 29, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011
  31. KillerDiller

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    51
    Status:
    Post Doc
    This figure is accurate, but it can also be misleading without considering other factors. These 47% are not "free loaders", as they still paid pay roll taxes and other state, local, and federal taxes. Even with the tax credits and stimulus packages released under Bush and Obama, the average middle-class family paid over 14% of their income in taxes. I won't argue that the wealthy pay a lower rate than this, because that's often not true--at least not on the federal level. However, the tax rates for the wealthy have declined more than any other group and that has certainly contributed to the current economic crisis.

    I agree that it is necessary to trim the fat from some government programs. However, raising the tax rate on the wealthy back to previous levels is also going to be necessary if we ever want to balance the budget.
     
  32. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist

    As stats people I think we can expect better data analysis and interpretation from ourselves. The best way to measure revenue is (taxes / GDP), because using a simple number or even inflation adjusted number ignores the fact that the economy has been growing. By this measure, federal tax revenues are at their lowest point since 1950. The statement "Revenue is relatively high" is just not true.

    Here is some data presentation:

    Note how tiny the shares of estate/gift taxes and corporate taxes have become. How else would you interpret this data? There has been a strong push over the past 30 years to lower taxes and starve ourselves. Do you really think their efforts have been unsuccessful?

    Also false. You don't tax people as much as you tax wealth. In that respect we've always been an 80/20 country (now approaching 85/15), meaning 80 percent of the wealth in 20 percent of the people's hands. As we've eased back from taxing where the real wealth lies, our government is on more and more of a crash course with financial insolvency.

    Talking about percentages of people and taxes is red herring data. All those people collectively make up one drop in the bucket.

    If you went after the red tape, you would not find enough money to save
    . Look at a chart of where our money goes. If this was a problem of red tape we would have solved it long ago. If you cut 10% from every federal employee salary you would save $26 billion. I won't stand in your way of doing that or even argue against it, but then what?
     
  33. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Actually, sorry, one point against just cutting 10% of federal salaries: My main point is that it's a drop in the bucket, but I don't want to be intellectually lazy and just give it away.

    The problem is that percentage of income that is spent falls as total income rises. Because we are a consumer driven economy, any hit to people who spend 80% of their income is a greater harm to our overall GDP than a hit to people who spend 50% of their income.
     
  34. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    400
    You could eliminate entire agencies (e.g., OIG, ORO) and administrative positions. You could stop the various social engineering attempts/programs. You could substantially cut the defense budget. Stop entering into wars that aren't direct impingements on our soil (Ron Paul foreign policy), stop foreign aid, close military bases overseas and, again, control immigration. We have a burgeoning welfare state, a culture of poverty that our programs and policies have cultivated.

    The US corporate tax rate is quite high compared to other countries. You see, we have this global economy problem. Besides, businesses shouldn't pay taxes in my opinion beyond property and sales. Speaking of which, religion is big business. . . how 'bout some property taxes on those megachurches? Also, on an individual level, we don't tax wealth (except when people die), we tax income. It is easier for the wealthy to hide income than some demographics (and, even, not so wealthy . . . e.g., small business owners). Only salaried folks have difficulty hiding incomes and, hence, they pay the higher tax rates. Btw, estate taxes are pure confiscation. Don't know about you, but I'd rather leave my money to my children than the government. A consumption based tax would solve that problem, in my opinion. Everyone NEEDS to pay into the system. Without that, you just have people voting for other people's money. That is not a sustainable plan. And, as we see, the pot of people that don't pay in is growing.
     
    #33 Jon Snow, Jul 29, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011
  35. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    400
    http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

    From 7% of GDP to 35% from 1902 to 2010. There is a discrepancy between the chart in your link and this one; it's because yours does not account for FICA/SS/Medicare. But, those things are in the general budget. They are taxes.


    and spending...

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_history


    So, you think the problem is lower taxes on the wealthy? Really?


    disclaimer: I make no claims about the accuracy of the above charts. They look about right and are the first links that popped up when I searched.
     
    #34 Jon Snow, Jul 29, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011
  36. Therapist4Chnge

    Therapist4Chnge Neuropsych Ninja Faculty
    Faculty Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    21,375
    Likes Received:
    2,284
    Status:
    Psychologist
    This is a red herring. The real problem is how the money is being spent once it has been collected. The DOD budget (the sacred cow), social welfare programs, and ridiculous "pork" that seems to be tacked onto every bill that passes through the halls of Congress. Spending is out of control, and until that can be reeled in, it doesn't matter how much we collect through taxes.

    There is in fact a problem with how we tax people, but it isn't because of an 80/20 problem. Everyone needs to pay their fair share, which includes all tax brackets. Allowing people to functionally pay "nothing" is ridiculous. Gutting the tax code and instituting a flat tax is the easiest and most realistic solution.

    Lastly, I agree with Jon Snow. We lose billions of dollars a year supporting illegal immigrants. The majority fail to pay into the system, yet they mooch off education, medical, and related resources.
     
  37. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    It's great to cite 1902 as your starting year 10 years before income taxes existed :p

    Also, this is what that graph actually says:

    28.65g means it is his 'guesstimate' that it will be 28.65% in 2010. So not 35% and not an actual data point that exists yet. The one that exists shows that it was 26.49% in 2009...which is the lowest since..the 1960s. So taxes revenues are at low since 1950s, all revenues at a low not seen since the 1960s. Yet we don't have a revenues are still at a relative high? They aren't.

    No matter what you are spending you will be up a creek if you are not looking at revenue.

    You wouldn't get an argument from me if we moved to VAT consumption based tax. But then we have 97% of Republicans signing their no-tax oath. So how likely is that to happen?

    The fact is we have the lowest taxes on the wealthy in a generation and concurrently we have a problem meeting our basic obligations, SS, debt payments, student loans, medicaid. So yes, a big part of the -solution- is returning to historic higher tax rates on wealthy people. The tax cut Bush enacted, which as we see did wonders for our economy, is the single biggest factor impacting our debt level right now.
     
  38. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    You are of course right about DoD, but earmarks are another red herring because they make up 0.5% of the budget. So is foreign aid. Both are less than 1% of the budget, yet they get whipped into a frenzy by interest groups such that the public thinks we spend 10% of our budget on foreign aid. Pure propagation of ignorance.

    Spending is the red herring because if you don't have money to spend you can't spend it.

    Again, you are conflating numbers of people with how much money they actually have to tax. Take all the money you want from poor people, you aren't going to solve our financial situation. The people who actually make bank in our country would just rather you stay focused on them while their hand is in the cookie jar.
     
  39. cara susanna

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,397
    Likes Received:
    1,562
    Status:
    Psychologist
    There's also the matter that the uber-wealthy always find loopholes out of taxes, so even if you raise taxes they probably won't pay as much as you would expect. Close those loopholes if you really want to redistribute the wealth.

    Not that I'm in favor of that. I don't think people should have to pay my way through graduate school just because they make a lot of money.
     
  40. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    400
    That's just crazy talk ;) If you confiscated ALL of the wealthy's money, it wouldn't solve the problem. We spend like drunken sailors at a whorehouse. The tax cur didn't kill the economy. Social engineering did. . . the push for home ownership for everyone, regardless of credit. . . community organizer's (hint: including those with names starting with "O") suing banks for discriminatory lending practices. . . basically government interference in the credit market lead to all sorts of shenanigans that screwed up the balance on incentive structures, leading to lots of bad lending practices and the f'd up investment vehicles built on those "sales" that lead to our current situation. Not tax cuts. . .
     
  41. Therapist4Chnge

    Therapist4Chnge Neuropsych Ninja Faculty
    Faculty Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    21,375
    Likes Received:
    2,284
    Status:
    Psychologist
    0.5% & 1.0% is WAAAAY too much. If people want to give money to other countries, they should do so privately. Spending public money outside of our borders is irresponsible to the fiscal budget and to the needs of our own citizens. I'm with Ron Paul on this....we shouldn't be involved in other countries' affairs, wars, etc.

    Why do people equate, "tax everyone" = "go after poor people!!"? I want everyone to be accountable for paying into the system. Millions of people fail to contribute taxes each year, and yes...a portion of them are in the lower tax brackets. The bulk of taxes should come from the top 2%-5%, but that doesn't absolve lower tax brackets from contributing their fair share. I think of it like a sliding scale fee at a clinic. The requirement to pay even a token amount brings buy-in from everyone.
     
  42. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    400
    By percentage. . . not raw dollars. Why should revenue percentage continue to increase? That doesn't seem logical. Is there a reason why government inflation needs to outpace our economy's growth? And spending, outpace even that? Why is the government cresting along at a nearly 40% GDP spending rate? That's insane. But, they need more money? WTF?
     
  43. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    CBS on Tax rates for the wealthy

    So while tax rates for the wealthy have declined 9%, the overall rate on everyone has declined only 0.6%. This is supposedly going to have no impact on how much money we have available? We've also slashed capital gains tax from 30 to 15%. How has that helped our economy?

    The funny thing is, I agree that all of the places you are going to look for spending are valid things to do. Even earmarks and foreign aid which are such pittances compared to the budget. Go after them because every bit helps. But people on the other side of this argument are willing to throw everything they have at this basic math to continue our collective delusion that returning to historic tax rates on the wealthy would do nothing. Like I said at the outset, this is a matter of priorities. Right now our government prioritizes lower taxes on the wealthy, lower capital gains tax over providing student loans. Really the whole federally backed student loan system is a part of this social engineering you guys deride. If you replace it with Chase and B of A the only practical result is less money for us and more money for Chase and B of A & their stockholders via higher interest rates.

    And yeah, this is the kind of thing that should be absolutely on the table.

    Again, this graph shows the impact of Bush's tax cuts on the debt. Arguing with it is like arguing with math.
    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday

    To some extent we are talking past each other. I'm not advocating confiscating all the wealthy people's money no more than you're advocating that fixing foreign aid will somehow solve our crisis. Only by attacking this problem in several different ways will it be solved, and ignoring revenues and the (lack of) contribution from the wealthy is like trying to do it with one hand tied behind your back.
     
  44. DrGachet

    Removed

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, people shouldn't have to pay for your grad education. At the same time, the insane gap between the rich and the poor is just inhumane, I don't care what anybody says. Unless the assumption is that the poor are users and useless, and the rich better than the rest. How can I, trained in behavioral sciences, and with a true desire to help my fellow human beings, watch them suffer, knowing full well that just a little bit of money could have made a world of difference in their situation. These loopholes are costing lives. Law should apply to every situation equally. You can't arrest a guy for smoking marijuana and humiliate him and put him on the show Cops, with the appearance that justice is being done, and then you have so much corruption at higher levels in our society that goes unpunished. This is not right.
     
  45. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    400
    hard to drop from nothing.
     
  46. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    I'd like to point out I'm not arguing against your principles, sure 0.5% may be too much, but the fact remains that your solutions are 1 foot of a 20 foot bridge we need to build. The income tax on the wealthy, capital gains, closing loopholes bring us waay closer but many are unwilling to consider them.

    Eliminating the deductions that you talk about resulting in 0 taxes for people was actually part of this "grand bargain" Obama wanted. Unfortunately for one side, including the revenue raising planks of this bridge is so untenable that they'd rather explode the bridge.
     
  47. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    400
    Nope, it's like arguing economics. Different ballgame. Tax cuts usually are succeeded by increases in revenue.
     
  48. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    :) Again, that statement was about the overall rate on 100% of people. I know you're not suggesting 100% of people pay nothing :p
     
  49. DrGachet

    Removed

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reagan started the whole thing with wanting less and less government regulation. I call it the evolutionary model, survival of the sleaziest. Or the belief in sanctity of competition, as if somehow pure competition is going to keep everyone in check.
     
  50. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Now you are arguing dogma. Supply side has been debunked and the evidence of "what actually happens" after the cuts does not support it either. Nor does the fact that the economy/revenue GREW after the Reagan tax increases and the Bush#1 tax increases.
     
  51. roubs

    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Status:
    Psychologist
    Given the many other opinions of people trained in the behavioral sciences, your empathy for those that have less than you is astonishing :p

    If anything working with actual poor people has sharpened my view that helping them is less "social engineering" than "basic humanity".
     

Share This Page