Congress Plans to Eliminate Subsidized Stafford Loans for Graduate School

[roubs]

I'm in full agreement with you. They should throw the book, kitchen sink, and whatever else at the ENRON people because they did amazing damage to thousands of people. As for the guy smoking pot....I'd want to get him into a diversion program before trying to send him to jail.

And these things are not mutually exclusive. The libertarian ideas you and Jon presented are not in direct opposition to what I was saying, in reality they should complement each other. Are a lot of ordinary Americans really against closing tax loopholes for hedge fund managers? You guys say that we can't wring everything we want out of the wealthy, but nor can we wring it out of eliminating foreign aid or earmarks. That doesn't mean they are bad ideas. As for the hedge funds, They manage to pay 15% tax rates instead of the 35% they should be paying. Shouldn't we funnel that money directly to stuff like student loans? The same with capital gains. Why should taxes be lower on income made on the stock market versus income earned working a job?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[2012PhD]

And these things are not mutually exclusive. The libertarian ideas you and Jon presented are not in direct opposition to what I was saying, in reality they should complement each other. Are a lot of ordinary Americans really against closing tax loopholes for hedge fund managers? You guys say that we can't wring everything we want out of the wealthy, but nor can we wring it out of eliminating foreign aid or earmarks. That doesn't mean they are bad ideas. As for the hedge funds, They manage to pay 15% tax rates instead of the 35% they should be paying. Shouldn't we funnel that money directly to stuff like student loans? The same with capital gains. Why should taxes be lower on income made on the stock market versus income earned working a job?

Under our current system, the wealthy and the poor don't pay enough in taxes. The wealthy even less so because of all the loopholes they are able to take advantage of. The" middle class" really bear the brunt of everything--paying 35% plus in taxes on modest incomes and live paycheck to paycheck. The middle class have become poor in our society and now we have the ultra rich vs. everyone else who is struggling. The truth is, investing money in social programs increases GDP, while tax cuts don't generate spending since rich people just put the money away for a rainy day. Poor people getting food stamps will spend the money immediately. Investing in social programs and preventive programs will also boost GDP and lead to cost cutting in the long-run.

The problem is culture. American culture doesn't value prevention and many believe that people are poor because they are lazy. We also don't value facts and make political decisions on emotion. We live in a very politically conservative, anti-intellectual country overall. Countries that have more humane policies, like Canada and Australia and the rest of the developed world, have a more intellectual and socially liberal population. The tea partiers just represent the people.

 

[2012PhD]

I should add that in many parts of the developed world, universities are free or very affordable so people don't have to get stuck taking out massive loans. We have our priorities backwards. Instead of investing in education and universal health care, we invest in war and make sure that the rich get richer. In other developed countries the rich pay more in taxes, but the system functions better because universities are affordable and people don't have to go bankrupt to get medical care. Its a more balanced and humane system.

 

[roubs]

I should add that in many parts of the developed world, universities are free or very affordable so people don't have to get stuck taking out massive loans. We have our priorities backwards. Instead of investing in education and universal health care, we invest in war and make sure that the rich get richer. In other developed countries the rich pay more in taxes, but the system functions better because universities are affordable and people don't have to go bankrupt to get medical care. Its a more balanced and humane system.

And there are a lot of people here saying "Good riddance" to the mere idea of the government covering the interest while you are in school. I mean, really. In the long run the taxpayer makes money off every person who takes out the federally-backed loans and then pays them off.

 

[ygritte]

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

Actually I spoke with a current student from Adler today who said they took 120 this year, and are looking at taking close to 200 next year.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Actually I spoke with a current student from Adler today who said they took 120 this year, and are looking at taking close to 200 next year.

120 *admitted* or 120 *attending*?

 

[Zigman]

Given the many other opinions of people trained in the behavioral sciences, your empathy for those that have less than you is astonishing

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

Agreed, any time this sort of topic comes up I am simply amazed at the opinions of some of the clinicians on here. It makes me wonder why they are in this field at all, because their attitudes are much more suited to being heartless, greed-obsessed politicians.

 

[roubs]

Agreed, any time this sort of topic comes up I am simply amazed at the opinions of some of the clinicians on here. It makes me wonder why they are in this field at all, because their attitudes are much more suited to being heartless, greed-obsessed politicians.

I've noticed some people who enter the field who have had their heads filled with "welfare queens and their Cadillacs" talk (or other rigid views) growing up end up with some significant ambivalence after working with actual people who are trying very hard to manage a bad situation that has often been present/growing since early adolescence.

Of course there are people out there cheating the system, but does that mean we should design a system so stringent that it squeezes people who do play fair? There's a need to balance and a lot more gray area than you'd think if you listen to talk radio.

 

[aagman01]

I've noticed some people who enter the field who have had their heads filled with "welfare queens and their Cadillacs" talk (or other rigid views) growing up end up with some significant ambivalence after working with actual people who are trying very hard to manage a bad situation that has often been present/growing since early adolescence.

Of course there are people out there cheating the system, but does that mean we should design a system so stringent that it squeezes people who do play fair? There's a need to balance and a lot more gray area than you'd think if you listen to talk radio.

agreed........i am constantly amazed at the self-righteous rigidness within our field.......hopefully such folks will get more open-minded therapists when they deal with their inevitable intrapersonal challenges!

 

[aequitasveritas]

And these things are not mutually exclusive. The libertarian ideas you and Jon presented are not in direct opposition to what I was saying, in reality they should complement each other. Are a lot of ordinary Americans really against closing tax loopholes for hedge fund managers? You guys say that we can't wring everything we want out of the wealthy, but nor can we wring it out of eliminating foreign aid or earmarks. That doesn't mean they are bad ideas. As for the hedge funds, They manage to pay 15% tax rates instead of the 35% they should be paying. Shouldn't we funnel that money directly to stuff like student loans? The same with capital gains. Why should taxes be lower on income made on the stock market versus income earned working a job?

You seem to think there is a tax percentage people "should" pay.

...Interesting.

I think the rest of us should pay 15% max and nobody should ever have to pay 30% in fed taxes again, ever.

 

[ygritte]

120 *admitted* or 120 *attending*?

Attending...and from what I could preview on google books in the Insider's Guide, that seems to be the norm for professional schools in Chicago.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think the rest of us should pay 15% max and nobody should ever have to pay 30% in fed taxes again, ever.

I believe the argument is that during the best economic times the top %-tiles had the largest tax %'s (30%+) levied on them. The Economy can't be reduced down to just this correlation, but I have been interested in learning more about other similarities from our strongest economic periods.

I am in total support of a flat tax and a simplified tax code. I know the corp. side of things will still be messy, but it is a start. As for Congress cutting the subsidization, I agree that it needs to be done, but it is only a first step. Sallie Mae is a twisted investment program for the Fed. I wish the private sector had better and supportable solutions.

 

[cara susanna]

Agreed, any time this sort of topic comes up I am simply amazed at the opinions of some of the clinicians on here. It makes me wonder why they are in this field at all, because their attitudes are much more suited to being heartless, greed-obsessed politicians.

So respectful of others' opinions, I see! I'm so tired of arguing politics because people always assume that anyone who disagrees with them is A) Heartless B) Stupid or C) Both.

This is the reason that right-leaning individuals in this field think that they have to hide their beliefs. If you hold a different opinion, that's fine, but then debate it instead of insulting the person.

And roubs, I work with poor clients who are often on assistance. No ambivalence here.

 

[roubs]

You seem to think there is a tax percentage people "should" pay

Why actually, yes I do. You probably figured that out because I said those exact words

I think the rest of us should pay 15% max

Look, another 'should' statement, we both have opinions!

Joking aside, I think we should pay enough taxes to support a system that includes a safety net for the poor, social security, medicare and all of the other -positive- things government does.

I'm not ascribing this position to you, but many crusaders against government engage in black and white thinking. "It's bad. Cut it. Government = bad. Bad. Cut it." I s^%$ you not, just yesterday I read an article about military recruitment that had 5 comments calling our military a welfare system for the working class. Obviously there is bloat in DoD and a lot of other places in our government, but when you proceed from a place of rigid anti-government ideology, it's hard to know where to start or stop with the cutting. And you feel like it's totally legitimate to call our military "welfare".

So yeah, I feel like cutting all tax rates to 15% without finding revenue anywhere else would lead to the destruction of what makes America a great country. Just two generations ago we borrowed and taxed to rebuild an entire continent of non-Americans, including our enemies, and now we seem allergic to the phrase shared sacrifice.

 

[roubs]

So respectful of others' opinions, I see! I'm so tired of arguing politics because people always assume that anyone who disagrees with them is A) Heartless B) Stupid or C) Both.

This is the reason that right-leaning individuals in this field think that they have to hide their beliefs. If you hold a different opinion, that's fine, but then debate it instead of insulting the person.

And roubs, I work with poor clients who are often on assistance. No ambivalence here.

I agree 100% with your first points. Disagreeing or having different priorities in no way makes people heartless or stupid.

As far as ambivalence, I'm well aware it can be readily resolved or even not present. But for people who came in with a belief that 80% of people on assistance were lazy cheats, finding out it's actually 80% who aren't can and should lead to some questioning of prior assumptions.

 

[cara susanna]

That's true, roubs. You've been very respectful throughout this discussion, so thanks for that.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I definitely bit my tongue in grad school about my political beliefs, but given the great (mostly negative) impact politics has on our field, I/we need to be more active in facilitating positive change. anyone who wants to go into private practice should be VERY involved, as they are the ones who get squeezed most of the time.

 

[roubs]

I believe the argument is that during the best economic times the top %-tiles had the largest tax %'s (30%+) levied on them. The Economy can't be reduced down to just this correlation, but I have been interested in learning more about other similarities from our strongest economic periods.

I am in total support of a flat tax and a simplified tax code. I know the corp. side of things will still be messy, but it is a start. As for Congress cutting the subsidization, I agree that it needs to be done, but it is only a first step. Sallie Mae is a twisted investment program for the Fed. I wish the private sector had better and supportable solutions.

Unfortunately the private sector has to report to shareholders who expect consistent growth. They will always be looking for ways to extract more from the people they lend to. (Adjustable rate mortgages, anyone?) That's why the government should have a hand in some sectors. If the government makes $1billion this year from loan repayment and (inflation adjusted) $1 billion a year 20 years from now from loan repayment, no one is pissed. The same scenario in the private sector would lead to the inevitable complaint: "Where is our growth??" They don't have better and supportable solutions for US. They have great solutions for themselves.

 

[erg923]

The older I get the more I identify with the tea party ideology, although I'm not quite as angry/outraged as alot of them appear to be about stuff. Im not sure why that is automatically construed as being heartless though.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Why actually, yes I do. You probably figured that out because I said those exact words

Look, another 'should' statement, we both have opinions!

Joking aside, I think we should pay enough taxes to support a system that includes a safety net for the poor, social security, medicare and all of the other -positive- things government does.

I'm not ascribing this position to you, but many crusaders against government engage in black and white thinking. "It's bad. Cut it. Government = bad. Bad. Cut it." I s^%$ you not, just yesterday I read an article about military recruitment that had 5 comments calling our military a welfare system for the working class. Obviously there is bloat in DoD and a lot of other places in our government, but when you proceed from a place of rigid anti-government ideology, it's hard to know where to start or stop with the cutting. And you feel like it's totally legitimate to call our military "welfare".

So yeah, I feel like cutting all tax rates to 15% without finding revenue anywhere else would lead to the destruction of what makes America a great country. Just two generations ago we borrowed and taxed to rebuild an entire continent of non-Americans, including our enemies, and now we seem allergic to the phrase shared sacrifice.

I think we have started to create a nanny state where people get to have "Bipolar Disorder", which of course means they can't work & they need 8 different doctors and 57 different expensive meds.

I know this thread touched upon the aforementioned issue a few posts up, but the idea you put back was that it wasn't much...the number of people scamming the system. I disagree entirely. I say we scam ourselves when we pretend people can be deemed as defunct and unable to support themselves simply because they have a "disability".

Per the military/welfare system issue....of course there are loons out there.

Also, I think we disagree that the SSI system is a positive thing the govnmt does. Its just another example of where working class people work their fingers to the bone and will now get nothing out of it as the "rich" (aka people making an amnt undetermined as of now) will not receive any return on investment...because...there are others, who... need it more.

Just to bottom line it:

Cut: dept of education because there is no evidence that it affects outcome
Cut: Dept of labor... unnecessary
Cut: most of the welfare system
Cut: SSI before age 65 unless someone is physically unable to work
Cut: any other superfluous grant program or spending program

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The older I get the more I identify with the tea party ideology, although I'm not quite as angry/outraged as alot of them appear to be about stuff. Im not sure why that is automatically construed as being heartless though.

Don't say that in psych circles... Ease into it by siding with the Libertarians (we are nice folks!), and then go from there. If you keep running Right, you'll eventually find the Tea Party.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, I'm becoming more libertarian. Probably because I'm a fiscal conservative small-government proponent but I hate social conservatism.

 

[Zigman]

So respectful of others' opinions, I see! I'm so tired of arguing politics because people always assume that anyone who disagrees with them is A) Heartless B) Stupid or C) Both.

This is the reason that right-leaning individuals in this field think that they have to hide their beliefs. If you hold a different opinion, that's fine, but then debate it instead of insulting the person.

And roubs, I work with poor clients who are often on assistance. No ambivalence here.

I actually only called politicians heartless.

I'm curious about clinicians' ability to help the poor though. So, hypothetically speaking....lets say one is a clinician who, as roubs suggested is possible, believes that 80% of those in govt assistance programs are gaming the system. They work in a setting which services mostly folks receiving such assistance. Do you think this clinician's biases will affect the quality or nature of services provided?

 

[aequitasveritas]

I actually only called politicians heartless.

I'm curious about clinicians' ability to help the poor though. So, hypothetically speaking....lets say one is a clinician who, as roubs suggested is possible, believes that 80% of those in govt assistance programs are gaming the system. They work in a setting which services mostly folks receiving such assistance. Do you think this clinician's biases will affect the quality or nature of services provided?

What about the clinician who considers them to be "unable" to work or be otherwise productive? Wouldn't that attitude be just as debilitating?

Empathy: a cognitive understanding of someone else's psychic life and affective experiences.
.....So if I understood a patient's malingering, I would be more empathic than someone who does not.

 

[Zigman]

What about the clinician who considers them to be "unable" to work or be otherwise productive? Wouldn't that attitude be just as debilitating?

Empathy: a cognitive understanding of someone else's psychic life and affective experiences.
.....So if I understood a patient's malingering, I would be more empathic than someone who does not.

Absolutely. It certainly goes both ways.

 

[2012PhD]

I
Just to bottom line it:

Cut: dept of education because there is no evidence that it affects outcome
Cut: Dept of labor... unnecessary
Cut: most of the welfare system
Cut: SSI before age 65 unless someone is physically unable to work
Cut: any other superfluous grant program or spending program

I agree that we have superflous spending and programs that don't work should be cut. I disagree about taxes needing to be so low.

How do you libertarians/tea partiers expect to pay for education, social security, and health care if everyone is only paying 15% in taxes? Where is the money going to come from. As far as developed countries, Americans pay less in taxes, have the most inhumane and inequal system, and the lowest government services. You guys have it backwards. We need more government services, not less---just effective services. Look at all the other countries that are actually humane and are doing well economically (switzerland, canada and australia). They all have way more government services and taxes are like 50% (in switzerland).

How is it that the countries performing well economically, happen to have the MOST government services and are humane?. I have friends in canada and they pay $0 for health care and get better care. Their universities are also mostly free or cheap for residents. Our health care is privatized (obama care isn't really universal) and we pay the most and have it pretty bad in terms of medical errors and waits. My friends in canada also don't wait longer for medical care whereas i have to pay a lot out of pocket even with health insurance that is expensive and still have to wait 6 weeks to 8 weeks to see a specialist or primary care. College costs 40,000 here. Other developed countries get free education. Clearly, being joining the tea party isn't the solution.

 

[roubs]

I think we have started to create a nanny state where people get to have "Bipolar Disorder", which of course means they can't work & they need 8 different doctors and 57 different expensive meds.

I know this thread touched upon the aforementioned issue a few posts up, but the idea you put back was that it wasn't much...the number of people scamming the system. I disagree entirely. I say we scam ourselves when we pretend people can be deemed as defunct and unable to support themselves simply because they have a "disability".

Per the military/welfare system issue....of course there are loons out there.

Also, I think we disagree that the SSI system is a positive thing the govnmt does. Its just another example of where working class people work their fingers to the bone and will now get nothing out of it as the "rich" (aka people making an amnt undetermined as of now) will not receive any return on investment...because...there are others, who... need it more.

Just to bottom line it:

Cut: dept of education because there is no evidence that it affects outcome
Cut: Dept of labor... unnecessary
Cut: most of the welfare system
Cut: SSI before age 65 unless someone is physically unable to work
Cut: any other superfluous grant program or spending program

I don't know any clinicians who deem the "disability" categories under SSI to equate to a client's destiny. However, what would you propose should happen to people who really can't work because of a disability?

I'll just address one of your cuts right now, so Department of Labor is occupational safety, wage and hour standards, and unemployment insurance among other things. Unnecessary? Do you honestly expect companies to adequately police themselves? Are you saying we should get rid of unemployment insurance and the minimum wage[enforced by Dept of Labor]?

 

[roubs]

The older I get the more I identify with the tea party ideology, although I'm not quite as angry/outraged as alot of them appear to be about stuff. Im not sure why that is automatically construed as being heartless though.

From my pov, they have a severe lack of empathy for others, specifically people who come from different backgrounds. Disagree?

 

[roubs]

Honestly I wonder what all of the libertarian posters thought of the gilded age part of history class, specifically the situation of the ordinary American who wasn't an owner of anything substantial and worked to earn a living. Do you think that that system of cronyism and naked capitalism was an overall good, or do you think we could never slide back to that?

I mean T4C just had outrage at Enron a few posts back, but our "nanny state" Securities and Exchange Commission is the only reason we know what happened.

 

[Zigman]

so Department of Labor is occupational safety, wage and hour standards, and unemployment insurance among other things. Unnecessary? Do you honestly expect companies to adequately police themselves? Are you saying we should get rid of unemployment insurance and the minimum wage[enforced by Dept of Labor]?

Yeah, I mean a 40hr work week, with two weeks of vacation a year is way too liberal. Look at what they squeeze out of people in China...12hr days, 6 days a week, in a factory with no minimum wage standards. We could be soooo much more productive. Aequitasveritas is right. Dept of Labor, totally unecessary....

 

[roubs]

Yeah, I mean a 40hr work week, with two weeks of vacation a year is way too liberal. Look at what they squeeze out of people in China...12hr days, 6 days a week, in a factory with no minimum wage standards. We could be soooo much more productive. Aequitasveritas is right. Dept of Labor, totally unecessary....

And as psychologists we could be consultants to companies that force their workers to sign "no suicide" pacts to try and keep them from jumping off the roof of the building.

...
...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

How is it that the countries performing well economically, happen to have the MOST government services and are humane?. I have friends in canada and they pay $0 for health care and get better care. Their universities are also mostly free or cheap for residents. Our health care is privatized (obama care isn't really universal) and we pay the most and have it pretty bad in terms of medical errors and waits. My friends in canada also don't wait longer for medical care whereas i have to pay a lot out of pocket even with health insurance that is expensive and still have to wait 6 weeks to 8 weeks to see a specialist or primary care. College costs 40,000 here. Other developed countries get free education. Clearly, being joining the tea party isn't the solution.

You need to do some research into the "wonderful" healthcare system that Canada currently supports. is one reporter's scary findings about his own system. The Ugly Truth About Canadian Healthcare Those with $ come to the USA because of better care and less delays in treatment. Elective surgeries often require being on a waiting list for 1-3 years. Cancer treatments, surgeries, and other life saving procedures can take months instead of weeks/days to get. There aren't universal delays for all treatments, but there are enough reports of long delays to give me pause. The Canadian system theoretically provides healthcare to ~33mil people. The USA Census is over 300mil. Is the system scalable? Many experts believe the system will fail miserably and actually cost more than our current (very broken) system.

I mean T4C just had outrage at Enron a few posts back, but our "nanny state" Securities and Exchange Commission is the only reason we know what happened.

It could have been caught sooner if there wasn't so much gov't red tape and opportunities to bury inaccuracies within overly complex tax filings and annual reports.

 

[aagman01]

Yeah, its incredible how folks follow conservative/business mantras without thinking through the repercussions. For example, congress de-regulated banking laws forbidding traditional savings & loans from also acting as investment banks (Glass/Steigel). That act (under Clinton, it should be pointed out) is generally considered the primary contributor towards the banking disasters we have witnessed/experienced since 2008. We then spent approximately a trillion dollars providing "TARP" and other revenues to businesses to clean up the mess that a lack of government regulation facilitated. And yet folks on this forum and in society continually complain about the fraction of that total that the government devotes towards food stamps/housing subsidies/and other social supports. People aren't machines, and while there are certainly some outliers of folks taking advantage of services or the government system, those problems are dwarfted by the rich taking advantage of loop holes & engaging in outright fraud of our financial system on a regular basis.

Just look at health care - in total, between individual pay and state/federal government the US pays the most per person of any country in the world. We spend approximately 150% of what Europe, Canada, and other industrialized countries spend on health care per capita. In Europe/Canada/Japan etc. the government uses its influence to promote efficiencies and keep costs down.

Here in the US approximately a quarter of Americans are uninsured and countless others (I am not sure of the numbers) are poorly insured (e.g. huge deductables). Here in the US, government officials regularly try (with some success) to bar prescription imports from Canada, because they are approximately 35% cheaper (because Canada actually negotiates prices in bulk with the pharmaceuticals, something the US refuses to do except by the military). So, the "free market" bars lower-cost alternatives. In the United States, our supposedly "private" system purposely encourages inefficiency and waste. Only 4% of taxes collected from Medicare go towards overhead costs (e.g. administrative) and only 1% in SSI. Compare that with HMOs - 35% is a common percentage of health care dollars collected that go towards overhead costs. We could have had "Medicare for all", at a lower cost than the health care that was passed last year. Yet instead, the private health care bill was passed, which costs more for tax payers and provides fewer benefits. But the plan will provide millions of new customers at full price to the health insurance companies, subsidized primarly by middle class tax payers (low-income folks will be subsidized for these plans, that cost WAY more than Medicare would cost, disproportionately by middle class tax payers). This plan, originally promoted by Bob Dole & Republicans in the 1990s and enacted in a very similar form in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, is seriously viewed as left-wing by many folks. Unbelievable.

The health system is a microcosm of our society - socialism for the affluent (e.g. public subsidizing corporations), capitalism for the masses. The more scary thing is that the "masses" regularly buy into this "socialism" scare (e.g. welfare cheats, evils of regulation, etc). Perhaps scarier is that educated people buy into this propaganda. And for those "concerned" by the debt levels, we would be practically debt neutral if the tax cuts for the affluent & the wars of choice in the prior decade were not passed.

Honestly I wonder what all of the libertarian posters thought of the gilded age part of history class, specifically the situation of the ordinary American who wasn't an owner of anything substantial and worked to earn a living. Do you think that that system of cronyism and naked capitalism was an overall good, or do you think we could never slide back to that?

I mean T4C just had outrage at Enron a few posts back, but our "nanny state" Securities and Exchange Commission is the only reason we know what happened.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, I don't know why people think gov't insurance will be better. If anything, they'll probably cover less.

And I don't want to go back to the Gilded Age type of industrialism, but I'm all for happy mediums.

aagman: It's funny how conservatives blame the liberals for the banks and the liberals blame the conservatives. We can't even agree on what caused the housing bubble!

 

[aagman01]

Your source (city journal) is published by the Manhattan Institute. The Manhattan Institute is a far-right political organization. Of course it is going to publish stories like the one shared by this "reporter" - the publication seeks to promote the viewpoints of its parent organization.

You need to do some research into the "wonderful" healthcare system that Canada currently supports. is one reporter's scary findings about his own system. The Ugly Truth About Canadian Healthcare Those with $ come to the USA because of better care and less delays in treatment. Elective surgeries often require being on a waiting list for 1-3 years. Cancer treatments, surgeries, and other life saving procedures can take months instead of weeks/days to get. There aren't universal delays for all treatments, but there are enough reports of long delays to give me pause. The Canadian system theoretically provides healthcare to ~33mil people. The USA Census is over 300mil. Is the system scalable? Many experts believe the system will fail miserably and actually cost more than our current (very broken) system.





It could have been caught sooner if there wasn't so much gov't red tape and opportunities to bury inaccuracies within overly complex tax filings and annual reports.

 

[cara susanna]

Well, I've also heard stories from my Canadian friends about the waiting lists being ridiculous.

 

[aagman01]

To be honest, we won't be getting into an online spat over this one........as I think we can both agree that both political parties are to blame
.........of course, I blame the repubs a bit more than the Dems, but not by that much at this point

Yeah, I don't know why people think gov't insurance will be better. If anything, they'll probably cover less.

And I don't want to go back to the Gilded Age type of industrialism, but I'm all for happy mediums.

aagman: It's funny how conservatives blame the liberals for the banks and the liberals blame the conservatives. We can't even agree on what caused the housing bubble!

 

[aagman01]

And I've frequently heard stories from my Canadian friends who love the Canadian health system. Innuendo should only lead beliefs so far.........

Well, I've also heard stories from my Canadian friends about the waiting lists being ridiculous.

 

[roubs]

You need to do some research into the "wonderful" healthcare system that Canada currently supports. is one reporter's scary findings about his own system. The Ugly Truth About Canadian Healthcare Those with $ come to the USA because of better care and less delays in treatment. Elective surgeries often require being on a waiting list for 1-3 years. Cancer treatments, surgeries, and other life saving procedures can take months instead of weeks/days to get. There aren't universal delays for all treatments, but there are enough reports of long delays to give me pause. The Canadian system theoretically provides healthcare to ~33mil people. The USA Census is over 300mil. Is the system scalable? Many experts believe the system will fail miserably and actually cost more than our current (very broken) system.





It could have been caught sooner if there wasn't so much gov't red tape and opportunities to bury inaccuracies within overly complex tax filings and annual reports.

Canadians with $ come here. And Americans without $ go...where?

re: Enron. Sure. But not having regulations would make everything they did..legal. I think the most accurate thing to say is that government can be part of the problem and part of the solution. Sadly that's way more nuance than you'll get from the Tea Party / libertarian wing usually. Do you see a lot of liberals out there defending government waste and ineptitude when it's exposed?

 

[roubs]

Yeah, I don't know why people think gov't insurance will be better. If anything, they'll probably cover less.

And I don't want to go back to the Gilded Age type of industrialism, but I'm all for happy mediums.

aagman: It's funny how conservatives blame the liberals for the banks and the liberals blame the conservatives. We can't even agree on what caused the housing bubble!

I think a fair reading of the situation shows that both parties are to blame for the housing bubble. Regulators under Bush were buds with the people they should have been regulating. And the banks and Fannie had plenty of Democrats in their pockets pushing their agenda.

HOWEVER, it was mostly Democrats who saw the need to re-regulate to stop this from happening again. And at the same time they had to admit that Clinton signed the deregulation in the first place (even tho it was hatched by Republicans in Congress). Lobbyists/interest grps are smart. They know its wise to have both parties in their pocket.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Canadians with $ come here. And Americans without $ go...where?

To the ER, without insurance, and the hospital eats the cost.

Do you see a lot of liberals out there defending government waste and ineptitude when it's exposed?

1. The Dept. of Education & our failing k-12 education system.
2. Banking bailouts.
3. Social Security.
4. Defense spending.
5. Social welfare programs.
6. Expensive "pork" payoffs and subsidies.
7. ...and on and on and on.

 

[cara susanna]

I think a fair reading of the situation shows that both parties are to blame for the housing bubble. Regulators under Bush were buds with the people they should have been regulating. And the banks and Fannie had plenty of Democrats in their pockets pushing their agenda.

HOWEVER, it was mostly Democrats who saw the need to re-regulate to stop this from happening again. And at the same time they had to admit that Clinton signed the deregulation in the first place (even tho it was hatched by Republicans in Congress). Lobbyists/interest grps are smart. They know its wise to have both parties in their pocket.

See, Democrats say it was de-regulation and Republicans say it was over-regulation.

And fair enough, aagman. I think both parties were definitely culpable.

 

[roubs]

1. The Dept. of Education & our failing k-12 education system.
2. Banking bailouts.
3. Social Security.
4. Defense spending.
5. Social welfare programs.
6. Expensive "pork" payoffs and subsidies.
7. ...and on and on and on.

I'm confused by this reply. Is this supposed to be a list of government waste...Social security?

Other than that, none of those other issues is black and white. The left generally hates/wants to stop bank bailouts, test score obsession in education, bloated DoD spending and pork. Pork is always bipartisan. Even when the Rs stopped "earmarks" they just really changed the name.

Honestly, listing a bunch of things in the 'bad' column just shows how great you are at adhering to a certain ideology. Sure, I have an ideology too but it's more akin to the idea that government can do good things for people. A lot less rigid than some other ideologies floating around out there.

 

[roubs]

See, Democrats say it was de-regulation and Republicans say it was over-regulation.

And fair enough, aagman.

It's not legitimate to say repealing Glass-Stegall was "over-regulation". That's just not factually accurate. Glass-Stegall was a post-Depression law that established regulation.

Without regulation there is greater ability to hide things and lie. Do people on the right really think that greater accountability to the government and the public caused the financial crisis? The facts of the story don't fit that narrative AND there is not a logical path/sequence of events that connects regulation to world-economy-shattering-crisis.

 

[cara susanna]

Well, there were community action groups suing the banks so they'd have to issue the subprime loans. That's what's meant by over-regulation, the government forcing the banks to issue those loans.

Edit: I like how I can't seem to hyphenate words consistently.

 

[aagman01]

Also, as to your Canadian friends, a 2009 poll found 86% support by Canadians for their health care system. The data would appear to indicate that your "friends" are likely outliers.........

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/679824

Well, I've also heard stories from my Canadian friends about the waiting lists being ridiculous.

 

[aagman01]

I recommend reading the news more critically. Internal documents from Countrywide and other lenders indicates that loan officers were regularly pushed by higher-ups in their company to get lower income folks to take on mortgages the banks knew they could not afford and also mortgages such as adjustable rate mortgages that were disadvantagous to the customer, because the banks could make greater profits on the loans and also could repackage, divide and re-sell the mortgages in the futures markets.

To say "over-regulation" is the cause of all of the fiscal problems is only supported, I would argue, by groups such as the Manhattan Institute, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and other right wing political organizations. Mainstream economists point to ongoing de-regulation as a main culprit. The business-government-business pipeline is another culprit (e.g. business leaders going into government, overseeing regulation and policy in the areas they worked, and then returning to the same business/industries and/or as lobbyists in the field). To be fair, Democrats are, in my opinion, nearly as to blame for this as Republicans. Of course, mainstream Dems in the USA are conservatives in Canada and Europe

Lastly, folks seem to love lumping SSI with out debt - please understand how our system works before making such claims! SSI is entirely funded by the payroll tax. As of today, it will be solvent (e.g. able to make full payments as per schedule) to aroiund 2025. However, very minor adjustments (such as Reagan last did) can allow it to be fully solvent for our lifetimes and beyond. One very easy way to do this is to make the tax percentage equal among all income levels. Right now, SSI payroll tax is regressive. Folks and businesses are taxed at 6.3% (give or take .1 or .2 percent). However, that tax stops at $105,000 income. That means that a fairly well paid psychologist, earning $105,000 pays 6.3% of their income towards SSI. Same goes for someone earning $50,000 or $30,000 or $75,000. However, income above $105,000 is NOT taxed at all. So, the psychologist earning $105,000 and Warren Buffet or Bill Gates all are taxed approximately $6,000 for SSI. If the salary cap were removed, and EVERYONE paid the same percentage of their salary towards SSI regardless of income, SSI would EASILY be solvent for our lifetimes and many to come. In reality, the SSI tax level could even be reduced but applied equally across all incomes and be solvent long-term.

Politics and public policy are very intertwined, so its important to critically examine all sources.

Well, there were community action groups suing the banks so they'd have to issue the subprime loans. That's what's meant by over-regulation, the government forcing the banks to issue those loans.

Edit: I like how I can't seem to hyphenate words consistently.

 

[Zigman]

Lastly, folks seem to love lumping SSI with out debt - please understand how our system works before making such claims! SSI is entirely funded by the payroll tax. As of today, it will be solvent (e.g. able to make full payments as per schedule) to aroiund 2025. However, very minor adjustments (such as Reagan last did) can allow it to be fully solvent for our lifetimes and beyond. One very easy way to do this is to make the tax percentage equal among all income levels. Right now, SSI payroll tax is regressive. Folks and businesses are taxed at 6.3% (give or take .1 or .2 percent). However, that tax stops at $105,000 income. That means that a fairly well paid psychologist, earning $105,000 pays 6.3% of their income towards SSI. Same goes for someone earning $50,000 or $30,000 or $75,000. However, income above $105,000 is NOT taxed at all. So, the psychologist earning $105,000 and Warren Buffet or Bill Gates all are taxed approximately $6,000 for SSI. If the salary cap were removed, and EVERYONE paid the same percentage of their salary towards SSI regardless of income, SSI would EASILY be solvent for our lifetimes and many to come. In reality, the SSI tax level could even be reduced but applied equally across all incomes and be solvent long-term.

This is absolutely spot-on. Its crazy how facts disagree so much with the propaganda forwarded by the mainstream media monopoly.

In a previous post, bank bailouts were mentioned as a debt problem....do all you right-wingers remember who pushed that initial big bailout???? Do you remember GW coming over the TV to tell us about how our economy was going to collapse unless we gave his buddies lots of money right away?? Oh wait, I forgot, that was only because poor people crashed our economy by taking on loans they couldn't afford. Yep, it had nothing to do with the unregulated derivatives market and gross inflation of the credit rating for them....nothing at all.

 

[KillerDiller]

Some do, sure; on both sides. Figure, the democrat's base is people that benefit substantially from social welfare (e.g., the 47% who don't pay taxes), those that don't work, and those for which is makes no to little difference whether republicans or democrats are in power (voting to pay for social programs and big government with other people's money).

That may have been the democratic base in the middle of last century, but it's certainly not the current base. Black and Latino voters across classes still favor the Democrats. However, the latest Pew report has the Republicans with a 4 point lead among poor voters who are White because they support socially conservative policies. This has been a trend for at least the last decade. See, for example, "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

How can you say it doesn't matter to this demographic whether Democrats or Republicans are in power? If anything, these are the people for whom it matters most. Republicans favor cutting the social programs that provide aid to the poor. Yet the purely ironic thing is that the working and non-working poor still go out and vote for Republican politicians because they support "Christian values."

 

[KillerDiller]

I didn't mean them. I meant those that happen to be in situations where it doesn't. For example, some relatively wealthy small business owners with limited numbers of employees who claim incomes of 12K a year, while pumping everything into their business (which is their personal asset). . . it makes no difference to them who is in power, they generally pay very little tax that is going to be changed by one party or the other.

Yeah, I agree that to that person, it's not going to make much of a difference until one party or another ends that option for a tax dodge. I actually include myself in a demographic for whom it doesn't matter who is in power (monetarily, anyway...it certainly matters for my blood pressure). Throughout Clinton, Bush, and Obama my taxes have stayed the same. However, my husband was laid off from his job 2 weeks ago, so if he doesn't find another one within a reasonable time frame, it may start to matter a whole hell of a lot .