Congress Plans to Eliminate Subsidized Stafford Loans for Graduate School

[roubs]

That's why it's a ponzi scheme. If it were truly a savings/trust fund, we wouldn't have this problem.

It has this problem because it aims to cover 100% of Americans, not a fixed number of Americans. Sheesh.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[roubs]

No, my real beef is the system is very poorly designed and is not solvent. Instead of an arbitrary 2% return on their money and a perpetual problem with funds in the system, if it were locked into what people put into it and the gov was not allowed to use it for other things and for people who have not paid into it, there would be both more money and no problem with solvency ever.


I have no problem with "the poor."

Alright. Since it's inception what % of beneficiaries have failed to get their SS checks because SS has gone insolvent?

 

[roubs]

How does libertarianism proposes to provide these rights to people who are born with no means? If you cannot get education and a job in the first place--or your job is taken away from you--how are you free to pursue life, liberty, and property in any way (let alone a way of your own choosing)? Don't the social programs help provide the poor with the rights you speak of? I understand the importance of cutting waste from these programs, and I agree with your suggestions about food stamps. However, cutting funding while failing to open new tax revenues amounts to "fixing" social welfare with a bulldozer instead of a scalpel (apologies if this metaphor has already been used).

Yes, countries like Haiti have an amazing 100% capitalist education system unfettered by interference by some Nanny state. The 90% of kids who can't afford school fees don't go to school. Problem solved. Next?

 

[roubs]

Jon, you need to accept that the gov't knows what is best for us; resistance is futile....

That was a great use of my lunchtime....

Thanks for reminding me of how I agree with a solid 50% of Ron Paul's ideas. His/your characterization of 'Big Government' is such a delicate and adorable little straw man. Can I take a pic before he's torched?

 

[Ollie123]

I think that those liberals who are pushing for socialism should live in and study other socialist cultures before sending our country down the socialist ****ter.

PS - If we're going to make this argument, I could say the same thing about those who are screaming about how even the slightest hint of socialism is the end of the world as we know it. The tea party folks I'm familiar with aren't exactly a group of Soviet refugees. I actually just got back from a former Soviet state (though I wouldn't describe the current system there as socialist...its probably closer to libertarian in its current state since its still very much developing). Primary purpose of the visit was personal not political, but did discuss these issues with a number of people while over there. Given you are calling out others for lack of experience with it, how much time have you spent in "socialist" countries?

Again - I certainly don't consider myself a socialist, but I recognize the need for balance. I think radical anything is a recipe for disaster, but we seem to have lost anything but radicalism over the past decade.

 

[roubs]

PS - If we're going to make this argument, I could say the same thing about those who are screaming about how even the slightest hint of socialism is the end of the world as we know it. The tea party folks I'm familiar with aren't exactly a group of Soviet refugees. I actually just got back from a former Soviet state (though I wouldn't describe the current system there as socialist...its probably closer to libertarian in its current state since its still very much developing). Primary purpose of the visit was personal not political, but did discuss these issues with a number of people while over there. Given you are calling out others for lack of experience with it, how much time have you spent in "socialist" countries?

Again - I certainly don't consider myself a socialist, but I recognize the need for balance. I think radical anything is a recipe for disaster, but we seem to have lost anything but radicalism over the past decade.

Also I think the "socialist culture" that many on the left tend to look to resembles something like the radical Marxist utopia of....Canada.

I know, you thought I was going to say North Korea, right?

 

[KillerDiller]

Difference between the "powerful" and the welfare subsidies: one of them work for their wealth (yep...most of the rich actually worked their *&%es off to get their money) and also create jobs for others. One of them does not.

Lots of people across social classes "work their &%es off." Would you argue that an investment banker for Goldman Sachs circa 2007 worked harder than a construction worker, or a housekeeper, or a substitute teacher? Making investments that lead to personal gain, but are free from personal risk doesn't sound all that hard to me.

I've worked a lot of jobs, and I have to say that being a substitute teacher was by far the hardest. I only lasted two days. Compensation was comparatively pathetic; those people should get combat pay.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

How does libertarianism proposes to provide these rights to people who are born with no means? If you cannot get education and a job in the first place--or your job is taken away from you--how are you free to pursue life, liberty, and property in any way (let alone a way of your own choosing)? Don't the social programs help provide the poor with the rights you speak of? I understand the importance of cutting waste from these programs, and I agree with your suggestions about food stamps. However, cutting funding while failing to open new tax revenues amounts to "fixing" social welfare with a bulldozer instead of a scalpel (apologies if this metaphor has already been used).

For the record, I am not completely against some social programs that provide assistance, but I am completely against how the current iterations of the programs function. None of them are not sustainable, and more importantly...they do not promote independence from the system. People get caught in the system and their reliance on the system does not help them nor their local community. We need an entirely new approach because this one is not working.

I believe the majority of citizens using one or more social programs are not trying to game the system, but they are also not in a position (whether by their choice or lack of real opportunity) to "graduate" from the system. I see many parallels in the VA system...though that is a discussion for another day.

There are also many great non-profits and private organizations that provide opportunities for people born with no means. Why do people first look to the gov't for support? We need more organizations that can provide real opportunities, though that is a discussion for another day.

Lastly, a bulldozer may be quicker, but a scapel can be just as deadly.

Thanks for reminding me of how I agree with a solid 50% of Ron Paul's ideas. His/your characterization of 'Big Government' is such a delicate and adorable little straw man. Can I take a pic before he's torched?

Adorable was totally what I was going for!

 

[2012PhD]

Yes, countries like Haiti have an amazing 100% capitalist education system unfettered by interference by some Nanny state. The 90% of kids who can't afford school fees don't go to school. Problem solved. Next?

No need to go to haiti for extreme capitalism. We have it right here. The top 10% own 87% of the resources in this country. If you are in the top 2% of income earners, you can send your kids to a good public school or pay 30K for private school. Everyone else gets ****ty education.

If you have advanced cancer in US, you can pay 100K for those new cancer drugs or die.

Its ridiculous to me that people worry about socialism in this country. We are so far from socialism. We are extreme in the other direction. Corporations and Pharma rule here.

 

[Ollie123]

For the record, I am not completely against some social programs that provide assistance, but I am completely against how the current iterations of the programs function. None of them are not sustainable, and more importantly...they do not promote independence from the system. People get caught in the system and their reliance on the system does not help them nor their local community. We need an entirely new approach because this one is not working.

Not sure if you consider yourself libertarian, but if this is what they were arguing, I'd be backing it 100%. From what I've seen, its not. At all.

Many of them may actually feel that way and just due to the nature of our political system believe the most effective way to negotiate is to ask for a billion dollars to negotiate down to $50 bucks instead of $49.99, but it just results in people like me getting irritated and refusing to support them or any other of our current political groups.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Not sure if you consider yourself libertarian, but if this is what they were arguing, I'd be backing it 100%. From what I've seen, its not. At all.

It depends on which faction you talk to within the Libertarian movement. I think it'd be at least a consideration for the majority of people within the movement, but the final product may be more fiscally conservative than you'd like (based on your prior posts). I'm willing to compromise, though I'm not sure that applies to everyone. It is worth noting that some of the more fringe groups want to cut all funding of the Arts and Science/Research programs, which is downright scary.

 

[roubs]

I'm curious as to what the libertarian posters think about this approach for reforming social programs. The post lays out a system that involves some investment of $ up front but seems to get people helping themselves quicker and more efficiently than the current assistance system we have now. As a liberal I don't support social programs cause I like big gov't, I'm for getting people what they need and able to support themselves as quickly as possible. That's whats best for psychological health, right? Even my clients who are long term SSI don't feel good about it. They feel idle and useless. This way seems like it might be more effective and have less dependency issues. If it proves it works on a larger scale I'd be all for it.

Jon, As for SS/Ponzi Scheme/Madoff--Madoff fell apart the instant there was transparency into what he was doing. Though it's clear you can't stand SS, we all know exactly how it works. It's codified into the law of the land. You're 100% right that it has sustainability issues due to demos, people who support SS don't deny that, but there is an obvious difference between a scheme that only survives due to secrecy and lies and one that runs into difficulties because old Generation A has 50 million people and new Generation B has 35 million. It's just not true to say the situations are equivalent enough to use the same vocabulary. YES, these population #s are a problem! But SSA is right that this is only a -superficial- similarity. If we change the laws about how SS Is funded and disbursed, we can return to a system where the average person puts in $50k and gets out $50k.

A balanced budget is appropriate in good times. Running a debt is appropriate when the private sector takes a nosedive. It's really that simple. As people who work in a social science ourselves, doesn't seem a bit off to say "Here's a rule to apply 100% of the time in 100% of situations" ? When clients come to us talking that way we generally encourage flexibility. But in politics/economics should we throw that virtue out the window?

 

[Zigman]

Difference between the "powerful" and the welfare subsidies: one of them work for their wealth (yep...most of the rich actually worked their *&%es off to get their money) and also create jobs for others. One of them does not.

You're totally right, the bottom 98% should be profusely grateful for all the job creating done over the past decade. The rich surely must have added more jobs than when their taxes where significantly higher under Clinton. Oh, wait...they didn't. Damn! Oh well, we should just continue to give them those tax breaks because one day they might...one day...

And to the suggestion that the rich all worked so hard. Yeah, I'm sure the cycle of inter-generational wealth built on the backs of slaves had nothing to do with it. What an inconvenient history the privileged have...

 

[aequitasveritas]

You're totally right, the bottom 98% should be profusely grateful for all the job creating done over the past decade. The rich surely must have added more jobs than when their taxes where significantly higher under Clinton. Oh, wait...they didn't. Damn! Oh well, we should just continue to give them those tax breaks because one day they might...one day...

And to the suggestion that the rich all worked so hard. Yeah, I'm sure the cycle of inter-generational wealth built on the backs of slaves had nothing to do with it. What an inconvenient history the privileged have...

You're wrong. I can find the studies at some point. Most people considered "rich" are self made in the US.
Generational wealth is actually the exception.

Moreover, it really doesnt matter where someone got their money, from inheritance or working...because it's theirs....not yours to take for the "common good"

Your post is a good example of class warfare.

 

[aequitasveritas]

I'm curious as to what the libertarian posters think about this approach for reforming social programs. The post lays out a system that involves some investment of $ up front but seems to get people helping themselves quicker and more efficiently than the current assistance system we have now. As a liberal I don't support social programs cause I like big gov't, I'm for getting people what they need and able to support themselves as quickly as possible. That's whats best for psychological health, right? Even my clients who are long term SSI don't feel good about it. They feel idle and useless. This way seems like it might be more effective and have less dependency issues. If it proves it works on a larger scale I'd be all for it.

Jon, As for SS/Ponzi Scheme/Madoff--Madoff fell apart the instant there was transparency into what he was doing. Though it's clear you can't stand SS, we all know exactly how it works. It's codified into the law of the land. You're 100% right that it has sustainability issues due to demos, people who support SS don't deny that, but there is an obvious difference between a scheme that only survives due to secrecy and lies and one that runs into difficulties because old Generation A has 50 million people and new Generation B has 35 million. It's just not true to say the situations are equivalent enough to use the same vocabulary. YES, these population #s are a problem! But SSA is right that this is only a -superficial- similarity. If we change the laws about how SS Is funded and disbursed, we can return to a system where the average person puts in $50k and gets out $50k.

A balanced budget is appropriate in good times. Running a debt is appropriate when the private sector takes a nosedive. It's really that simple. As people who work in a social science ourselves, doesn't seem a bit off to say "Here's a rule to apply 100% of the time in 100% of situations" ? When clients come to us talking that way we generally encourage flexibility. But in politics/economics should we throw that virtue out the window?

I read the article in the link. I like it better than plain welfare.
But, I think human drive to survive will create ingenuity and ambition by itself.
If people have a safety net for a fixed period of time, after which they can never be on it again (or for like 5-10 yrs), they will scramble and come up with something.
I'd have a problem with something like this only because it would still require federal salaried employees and case managers etc, and it would also still leave a chunk open to scamming.

But again, I like it better than just plain welfare.

 

[2012PhD]

You're wrong. I can find the studies at some point. Most people considered "rich" are self made in the US.
Generational wealth is actually the exception.

Moreover, it really doesnt matter where someone got their money, from inheritance or working...because it's theirs....not yours to take for the "common good"

Your post is a good example of class warfare.

You guys are confusing the rich with the middle class. When I refer to "rich," I refer to people earning $250,000 to billions. Only about 1% of the population earns 250 and above, yet they control the majority of resources and wealth in this country, and pay minimal in taxes considering loopholes and such. Waren Buffet has shown that he pays less in taxes than his receptionist. Is this fair? The majority of these folks are not self-made. Plus, if only 1% of the country is capable of being rich, are the rest not as resourceful and hardworking as you suggest since you are saying the rich work harder? What about the rest of the 99% of the population. This includes you and all psychologists since we are not in the top 1%. Then I guess psychologists don't work hard enough.

John was saying that the The "middle class" work hard and have a huge share of the tax burden. However, There is no middle class anymore, the middle class are poor. The median family income in this country is 40-50K. With food, gas, and health care costs skyrocketing, the middle class has gotten screwed. They live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to put food on the table. This is the typical middle class family. In the U.S. you are generally poor or the top 2%. There is no need for class warfare. This is a reality.

Corporations and big pharma want you to believe that the problem is "big government" so people won't get upset that the top is controlling everything. Corporations and lobbyists control the government. Pharma controls the majority of the health care field, not the government. They decide which studies to fund and which drugs are going to be prescribed to you when you see your doctor. Most health insurance companies are not following obama care and found loopholes around the law. All the problems we have in this country can be broken down to inequality and lack of adequate oversight and regulation.

 

[aequitasveritas]

You guys are confusing the rich with the middle class. When I refer to "rich," I refer to people earning $250,000 to billions. Only about 1% of the population earns 250 and above, yet they control the majority of resources and wealth in this country, and pay minimal in taxes considering loopholes and such. Waren Buffet has shown that he pays less in taxes than his receptionist. Is this fair? The majority of these folks are not self-made. Plus, if only 1% of the country is capable of being rich, are the rest not as resourceful and hardworking as you suggest since you are saying the rich work harder? What about the rest of the 99% of the population. This includes you and all psychologists since we are not in the top 1%. Then I guess psychologists don't work hard enough.

John was saying that the The "middle class" work hard and have a huge share of the tax burden. However, There is no middle class anymore, the middle class are poor. The median family income in this country is 40-50K. With food, gas, and health care costs skyrocketing, the middle class has gotten screwed. They live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to put food on the table. This is the typical middle class family. In the U.S. you are generally poor or the top 2%. There is no need for class warfare. This is a reality.

Corporations and big pharma want you to believe that the problem is "big government" so people won't get upset that the top is controlling everything. Corporations and lobbyists control the government. Pharma controls the majority of the health care field, not the government. They decide which studies to fund and which drugs are going to be prescribed to you when you see your doctor. Most health insurance companies are not following obama care and found loopholes around the law. All the problems we have in this country can be broken down to inequality and lack of adequate oversight and regulation.

If you really think that >250k = "rich", then I am very scared for where this country is headed.

You are sorely mistaken on almost every point.
1. Most people indeed have worked hard for their wealth.
2. You have no right to tell anyone else what do do with their money no matter where is comes from.
3. If Warren Buffet wants to contribute more to the Govnmt, NO ONE IS STOPING HIM! However, isn't it interesting that he entrusted his life savings to charity through the Gates Foundation? yet he thinks the rest of us should entrust ours to the federal government through taxes. I wonder why he chose to manage charity through private citizens rather than government?
4. YES...the typical middle class family does struggle!
.....So why would you want to take away the reward that comes with making more money?!

You are basically saying, "hey Mr. Brown, you're struggling now at 50k, and guess what?..when you start making more money we're just going to tax you higher so that you can never realize the benefit of your hard work."

You are also disregarding the data provided by Milton Freedman.

The gap between the "rich" and poor continues, yet the poor only increase in quality of life and income when the rich also experience increased income and less tax burden. A simple direct correlation based on 30+ yrs of data.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think the parameters for "rich"/"wealthy" are quite distorted. Making $250k/yr is a drop in the bucket in some cases. I know people who make $250k+/yr, live in $1+ million house, but would be completely snookered if they lost their main income. Is that person really rich? Someone who is rich/wealthy is a far different animal.

Waren Buffet has shown that he pays less in taxes than his receptionist. Is this fair? The majority of these folks are not self-made.

So? That has no bearing on this conversation. They won the genetic lottery, as they were born in a developed country and to a family with more resources than most. It is akin to me complaining that I'm not 6" taller, because then I could have been an unstoppable power forward in the NBA. There are far more factors invovled,though wealth is a major advantage.

Plus, if only 1% of the country is capable of being rich, are the rest not as resourceful and hardworking as you suggest since you are saying the rich work harder? What about the rest of the 99% of the population. This includes you and all psychologists since we are not in the top 1%. Then I guess psychologists don't work hard enough.

Far more people are "capable" of being rich, but for one reason or another they are not. Many people are unwilling to risk their life savings on an idea. Others aren't willing to put in the time/effort/etc. Some have poor timing. And yes..some do not have the resources. People should be (and often are) rewarded for taking that up front risk.

John was saying that the The "middle class" work hard and have a huge share of the tax burden. However, There is no middle class anymore, the middle class are poor. The median family income in this country is 40-50K. With food, gas, and health care costs skyrocketing, the middle class has gotten screwed. They live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to put food on the table. This is the typical middle class family. In the U.S. you are generally poor or the top 2%. There is no need for class warfare. This is a reality.

I agree the middle class, on average, pay more than their fair share in taxes. They also get screwed by increased healthcare cost, inflation, stagnent/declining salaries, downsizing, etc. However, I disagree that the middle class are poor. The median family income can be sufficient to support a family in most place in the country, as the vast majority of the US population do not live in NYC, DC, LA, etc. The problem with many households is that they have very poor spending habits. Multi-car families, cable, new clothes, and similar items are not true necessities, though many people mistake them to be absolutely necessary. People still get squeezed after the best budgeting possible, but it is far less than the majority of the middle class.

Corporations and big pharma want you to believe that the problem is "big government" so people won't get upset that the top is controlling everything. Corporations and lobbyists control the government. Pharma controls the majority of the health care field, not the government. They decide which studies to fund and which drugs are going to be prescribed to you when you see your doctor. Most health insurance companies are not following obama care and found loopholes around the law. All the problems we have in this country can be broken down to inequality and lack of adequate oversight and regulation.

Trying to tease out which group is more to blame is like trying to choose which wireless carrier provides the worst customer service. They all do. Corps, gov't, and lobbyists are all to blame...but so are each and every citizen. We can and should do more, instead most wait for someone else to do the heavy lifting while we shout from the sidelines. I'm not absolving any of the "boogymen" mentioned above, but I think a major failing that often gets glossed over is the general lack of personal accountability. What have you (not 2012PhD, but everyone here) done to be heard?

Btw, the "loopholes" are big enough to drive a truck through, and the plan should have been killed long before a floor vote. It screws everyone but the insurance companies, yet everyone signed off on it because they didn't want to be known as the group that failed their constituents. Guess what...they failed them anyway.

 

[roubs]

I really want to see the place where Al Gore called people making $60,000 rich. If anything I've heard more people recently calling those making $500k/yr "middle class". But also teachers who make $100k/yr including (70k salary+insurance plan/retirement) are "rich" (probably because they're in a union).

Use whatever labels you want, Americans making $250k+/yr have incredible economic security that most in the bottom 90% could only dream of. And really i think that's what we're losing sight of, the security of knowing you can ride out a bad time, not go bankrupt when you or your parent becomes sick, not being cut off by Aetna and left for dead when you need a stem cell transplant because you hit your lifetime max.

As for the trust fund, I think you could use a little bit of the understanding you speak of. The "trust fund" is just where the excess goes that is not being paid out. The money comes in, obligations are paid out, and then the excess "in" money goes to the "trust fund" which buys tbills/notes/bonds that it can redeem later. The key point is, the money my mom gets in SS every month comes directly from my own(and everyone elses, yay) FICA withholding.

 

[2012PhD]

If you really think that >250k = "rich", then I am very scared for where this country is headed.

You are sorely mistaken on almost every point.
1. Most people indeed have worked hard for their wealth.
2. You have no right to tell anyone else what do do with their money no matter where is comes from.
3. If Warren Buffet wants to contribute more to the Govnmt, NO ONE IS STOPING HIM! However, isn't it interesting that he entrusted his life savings to charity through the Gates Foundation? yet he thinks the rest of us should entrust ours to the federal government through taxes. I wonder why he chose to manage charity through private citizens rather than government?
4. YES...the typical middle class family does struggle!
.....So why would you want to take away the reward that comes with making more money?!

You are basically saying, "hey Mr. Brown, you're struggling now at 50k, and guess what?..when you start making more money we're just going to tax you higher so that you can never realize the benefit of your hard work."

You are also disregarding the data provided by Milton Freedman.

The gap between the "rich" and poor continues, yet the poor only increase in quality of life and income when the rich also experience increased income and less tax burden. A simple direct correlation based on 30+ yrs of data.

Your logic doesn't make any sense. I am not saying that the rich need to be soley taxed and everyone else gets off. However, If warren buffet is being taxed less than all of us in the middle class, how is that a fair tax system? Why should someone who makes billions be taxed less than a typical middle class person? This year with my 25K on internship, I am paying about 30% in taxes, including state taxes. People who are making 20 times my income are paying less in taxes because they are able to use the loopholes in the system. You are saying that lower income people don't pay taxes, but here i am with my internship stipend and taxed like crazy. One of my MD friends who is making 400K is able to deduct part of her apartment from her taxes, takes cash from patients and doesn't include as income, and takes advantage of many loopholes in our tax system. She is paying a smaller proportion of her income in taxes than me. How can you justify this? The tax system encourages people with money to cheat the system while the middle and even lower class pay a lot in taxes.

Households who are earning 250K and above are the top 1% of income earners. If the top 1% are not rich than who is rich?!?!?

You can check out the household income in the U.S. charts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

 

[2012PhD]

i find that improbable. Are you just talking income taxes (federal + state) or are you including sales tax, gas tax, etc. . . ?

Just federal and state tax in CA. To be exact, my stipend is 27K and it comes out to 1600 per month, including health insurance. That is about 30% i believe.

I also pay 8% in sales tax in CA on groceries and everything i buy on top of this, so it comes out to 40% if you include sales tax.

 

[2012PhD]

It really seems that those of you that associate with the libertarian movement are supportive of the same policies of someone like me who considers herself socially liberal. I am def. supportive of smart and effective policies that encourage poor people to capitalize on their strengths and to become independent so i'm really not sure what the difference is aside from language?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

She is paying a smaller proportion of her income in taxes than me. How can you justify this? The tax system encourages people with money to cheat the system while the middle and even lower class pay a lot in taxes.

If you want a change to our tax system, you should vote for Dr. Ron Paul. He's been a big supporter of a flat tax.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Households who are earning 250K and above are the top 1% of income earners. If the top 1% are not rich than who is rich?!?!?

You can check out the household income in the U.S. charts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

(...did you just use a Wikipedia reference...why would a doc student do that?)

I am further amazed. Your arguments represent a good heart and a true emotional base to how you perceive things. I do not doubt your motivations whatsoever.

You look at the percent of people and assume that the upper limits represent the construct of "rich."
....you're defining the construct by the range of measurement. This is not how solid research is conducted in Clinical Psych.....it's not how solid thinking is conducted either.

My thought is...."wow, only 1% make 250K or more?...that's a problem in and of itself...how can we increase the percent of people who make more? And, how can we allow people to keep the money they earn?"

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

You look at the percent of people and assume that the upper limits represent the construct of "rich."
....you're defining the construct by the range of measurement. This is not how solid research is conducted in Clinical Psych.....it's not how solid thinking is conducted either.

My thought is...."wow, only 1% make 250K or more?...that's a problem in and of itself...how can we increase the percent of people who make more? And, how can we allow people to keep the money they earn?"

The need for and the perception of the thing to be measured, and the unit/range of measurement itself, will always already be informed (at least in part) by the construct.

FWIW -- I look at the distribution of wealth and think, how can we make abolishing the wage system fun for the whole family? And fret not O123 -- there are many different strains of anarchy to protect us from the chaos and half baked radicals lurking in the wings!

 

[roubs]

(...did you just use a Wikipedia reference...why would a doc student do that?)

I am further amazed. Your arguments represent a good heart and a true emotional base to how you perceive things. I do not doubt your motivations whatsoever.

You look at the percent of people and assume that the upper limits represent the construct of "rich."
....you're defining the construct by the range of measurement. This is not how solid research is conducted in Clinical Psych.....it's not how solid thinking is conducted either.

My thought is...."wow, only 1% make 250K or more?...that's a problem in and of itself...how can we increase the percent of people who make more? And, how can we allow people to keep the money they earn?"

You are right in that how we define rich vs poor isn't very meaningful.

What IS meaningful: 2012PhDs points about people making 200k+ using loopholes to pay less % than people with middle incomes. The fact that wealthy investors pay a lower tax rate on capital gains than middle income earners pay on wages. It seems like libertarians always come back with the point that low income earners end up paying no tax. I say FIRST eliminate the loopholes/deductions that allow the high earners to evade their actual tax bracket, see what kind of shape we're in, and then move to spending cuts that most people can manage, and then look at if very low (under 20k) gross earners need to be paying taxes. Those should be the priorities.

 

[roubs]

If you want a change to our tax system, you should vote for Dr. Ron Paul. He's been a big supporter of a flat tax.

If Dr. Ron Paul has a plan for modifying the safety net that doesn't involve setting it on fire I'd love to read it and consider it.

If he can justify his cuts in government and explain why we don't need something and use reasoning that doesn't use self-reference to libertarian ideology that "government can't do it", I'd love to read it and consider it. Instead what I mostly read from him is wanting to take a chainsaw to government with flimsy justification and no explanation of why we should risk a slide back to the Gilded Age.

 

[aequitasveritas]

I'm not wealthy. But, I do like to invest on the market. A 35% capital gains would hit middle income earners too. The high and middle earners are carrying over half the country. As far as behavioral designs of programs, there has to incentives for performance. You can't just give people money.

Just for the comedy value (someone forwarded this to me):


http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/aug/05/where-your-tax-dollars-are-going/

I couldn't decide whether I wanted to laugh or cry or break something when I watched that

 

[roubs]

I'm not wealthy. But, I do like to invest on the market. A 35% capital gains would hit middle income earners too. The high and middle earners are carrying over half the country. As far as behavioral designs of programs, there has to incentives for performance. You can't just give people money.

Just for the comedy value (someone forwarded this to me):


http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/aug/05/where-your-tax-dollars-are-going/

Yeah, my family and I have investments also, I don't think our lives would erode if we had to pay the same 30% capital gains rate we had up until 2001. Do you buy and sell investments a lot on a yearly basis that you would feel it? I bet the people who can afford to play around on a short term basis with buying/selling can afford the same tax that we have on wages.

 

[strad48]

I couldn't decide whether I wanted to laugh or cry or break something when I watched that

Oh, I'd recommend laughing. It is (rather formulaic) television, after all. Yeah, I know JJ is supposed to be 'real' but I suspect the original was a lot more bland. The more outrageous the defendant, the better for JJ. The whole point is to a) make the star of the show look brilliant and b) generate some kind of arousal, otherwise it would be pretty poor entertainment, wouldn't it?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Oh, I'd recommend laughing. It is (rather formulaic) television, after all. Yeah, I know JJ is supposed to be 'real' but I suspect the original was a lot more bland. The more outrageous the defendant, the better for JJ. The whole point is to a) make the star of the show look brilliant and b) generate some kind of arousal, otherwise it would be pretty poor entertainment, wouldn't it?

While I admit that it is editted to evoke certain reactions, that does not diminish the fact that the guy's mentality is alive and well in many of our communities.

 

[2012PhD]

While I admit that it is editted to evoke certain reactions, that does not diminish the fact that the guy's mentality is alive and well in many of our communities.

This mentality is a problem. However, i think JJ picked the most extreme case to turn it into a political issue. This mentality is not the norm in low income communities from my experience. I am more concerned with the Wall Street Bankers and Enron types who are stealing money in the billions and then getting bailed out.

I looked into Ron Paul's website and he wants to eliminate the federal reserve, eliminate income, estate, and capital gains taxes. Given that we already have enormous debt and the lowest taxes in the developed world, how do further tax cuts help? Most americans are concerned with jobs right now and are living paycheck to paycheck. We should be focused on improving the economy and the job market. Unfortunately, our priorities are out of whack. We spend the highest percentage of GDP on defense (e.g. this was even higher under bush than obama). Spending on education for kids and job training is equal to spending on veterans. This is totally insane to me. The republicans typically prioritize defense spending even more. I am disturbed that spending on defense trumps education, health care, social services and everything else.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

2012PhD, you'll be happy to know that Ron Paul doesn't want to continue the drunken defense spending that has been the norm for the past 10+ years. He has spoken out numerous times about getting our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...and bringing them home. He doesn't want to perpetuate the battles, and instead he wants to focus on issues that most directly impact our own citizens on our own soil. He is definitely fiscally conservative, but that isn't such a bad thing.

 

[2012PhD]

2012PhD, you'll be happy to know that Ron Paul doesn't want to continue the drunken defense spending that has been the norm for the past 10+ years. He has spoken out numerous times about getting our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...and bringing them home. He doesn't want to perpetuate the battles, and instead he wants to focus on issues that most directly impact our own citizens on our own soil. He is definitely fiscally conservative, but that isn't such a bad thing.

Even though i am socially liberal i am considering supporting him now because of his fiscally conservative policies. I don't agree with his stance on abortion, but i am more concerned with our defense spending at this point under both obama and bush.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Even though i am socially liberal i am considering supporting him now because of his fiscally conservative policies. I don't agree with his stance on abortion, but i am more concerned with our defense spending at this point under both obama and bush.

I support him for similar reasons. I have always been fiscally conservative, though most of "those candidates" have a blind spot for defense spending. He isn't socially liberal, though I think he has a bit more leeway in certain areas, at least to the extent of allow individuals to make their own decisions. Except for abortion. Given his history as a physician, I was hoping he'd at least budge a bit on the abortion issue (see that there are legitimate reasons for an abortion: rape, incest, etc), but he won't put any funding towards any of it. I figure if I agree with 85% of a candidate's platform, that is far better than I'll get with someone else.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

We should start a, "SDN Members For Dr. Ron Paul" movement. The political forum has quite a few RP supporters, though we all realize he probably won't be able to get the nomination. He's won some straw-poll votes...so there is still hope!

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

Just federal and state tax in CA. To be exact, my stipend is 27K and it comes out to 1600 per month, including health insurance. That is about 30% i believe.

I also pay 8% in sales tax in CA on groceries and everything i buy on top of this, so it comes out to 40% if you include sales tax.

shop on amazon, no tax (for now).

 

[roubs]

We should start a, "SDN Members For Dr. Ron Paul" movement. The political forum has quite a few RP supporters, though we all realize he probably won't be able to get the nomination. He's won some straw-poll votes...so there is still hope!

i am more concerned with our defense spending at this point under both obama and bush.

Even with defense/foreign policy he combines some sensible positions with some wacky ones like withdrawing from/defunding the United Nations. Many liberals agree w/him that the DoD is totally bloated, but Paul seems to advocate reacting too far in the other direction and totally withdrawing from the world. I was as anti-Iraq War as anyone, but I do think we can and should pressure countries to curb human rights abuses. Paul voted against virtually every measure to try and pressure Sudan or hold that country accountable for the genocide in Darfur. Pulling back from being the world's policeman does mean we need to stick our head in the sand.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

as the world's police....we assume the vast majority of cost and blame, while other countries make demands without equal support. I fully support our withdrawal, since it is a lose/lose for the USA.

 

[roubs]

as the world's police....we assume the vast majority of cost and blame, while other countries make demands without equal support. I fully support our withdrawal, since it is a lose/lose for the USA.

I could write a much longer list of things the UN has f'ed up. They pretty much stood down and allowed the Rwandan genocide to happen. But, man, you guys are in it pretty deep if you're arguing "This organization has messed up in these ways. Let's abolish it and replace it with nothing" Do we have to allow history to repeat itself to remember why it was created in the first place?

It's funny that you bring up the fact that the UN can be anti-Israel. If the Ron Paul's of the world had been running the show, Israel would have been wiped off the face of the planet decades ago. No foreign aid, no Israel.

Exactly what would be left after you've razed everything that doesn't meet your standard of perfection?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Exactly what would be left after you've razed everything that doesn't meet your standard of perfection?

Obviously we couldn't get rid of everything, but the fact that we seem to always get "more of the same" is a HUGE problem. It is far from perfection, but we definitely could improve how we handle our own needs as well as how much we involve ourselves with the politics of other countries. I'm far from an ultra-nationalist, but I think we need to focus on our own problems and scale back our involvement in other countries' problems....or at least stop spending trillions of dollars blowing them up.

 

[roubs]

Obviously we couldn't get rid of everything, but the fact that we seem to always get "more of the same" is a HUGE problem. It is far from perfection, but we definitely could improve how we handle our own needs as well as how much we involve ourselves with the politics of other countries. I'm far from an ultra-nationalist, but I think we need to focus on our own problems and scale back our involvement in other countries' problems....or at least stop spending trillions of dollars blowing them up.

See, when you say things it sounds reasonable. When Ron Paul says things like abolish the UN it sounds nutty. Obviously parts of the UN are a huge mess and inefficient, and yet I strongly believe in its original mission and there are other clear examples of it working. Paul seems to have a "get rid of it first, ask questions later" approach based on how he writes/gives interviews.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

See, when you say things it sounds reasonable. When Ron Paul says things like abolish the UN it sounds nutty. Obviously parts of the UN are a huge mess and inefficient, and yet I strongly believe in its original mission and there are other clear examples of it working. Paul seems to have a "get rid of it first, ask questions later" approach based on how he writes/gives interviews.

I think he (and all politicians) need to start a bit farther out because they know they will need to give up some ground to meet in the middle. One of Obama's biggest failures as a president was caving too quickly and on too many items within the healthcare bill. He gave away ground without much fight, so when everyone finally sat at the bargaining table, he had already given up too much. The insurance lobbyist's won by working both sides of the aisle. When the 11th hour came, both sides were too afraid to be blamed for the bill failing...so they instead passed through what is arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written.

The best and worst thing thing about Ron Paul is that his views are seen as "too extreme" or "too different". We have seen what happens when you get re-treads in political positions, and Ron Paul wants to stop that sick cycle. Rolling Stone published a great article (even a blind dog finds a bone every once in awhile. ) about how Obama stacked his cabinet and surrounded himself with political and corporate re-treads. Most of his staff/cabinet came from Clinton's administration and the banking/finance world.....after they collected their Golden Parachutes. Obama's "Change" turned into "Much of the Same" because of it.

Ron Paul's ideas sound extreme because he is by-passing the broken system, and instead he is proposing new approaches. His ideas sound radical because he doesn't assume that we need thousand page documents to regulate our tax system. He is trying to bring accountability to our military spending. He is trying to give individuals their rights back that were stripped following 9/11, etc. His ideas are different and they are radical, but only because he isn't trying to do "much of the same"...because that just isn't going to work anymore.

 

[roubs]

I think he (and all politicians) need to start a bit farther out because they know they will need to give up some ground to meet in the middle. One of Obama's biggest failures as a president was caving too quickly and on too many items within the healthcare bill. He gave away ground without much fight, so when everyone finally sat at the bargaining table, he had already given up too much. The insurance lobbyist's won by working both sides of the aisle. When the 11th hour came, both sides were too afraid to be blamed for the bill failing...so they instead passed through what is arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written.

The best and worst thing thing about Ron Paul is that his views are seen as "too extreme" or "too different". We have seen what happens when you get re-treads in political positions, and Ron Paul wants to stop that sick cycle. Rolling Stone published a great article (even a blind dog finds a bone every once in awhile. ) about how Obama stacked his cabinet and surrounded himself with political and corporate re-treads. Most of his staff/cabinet came from Clinton's administration and the banking/finance world.....after they collected their Golden Parachutes. Obama's "Change" turned into "Much of the Same" because of it.

Ron Paul's ideas sound extreme because he is by-passing the broken system, and instead he is proposing new approaches. His ideas sound radical because he doesn't assume that we need thousand page documents to regulate our tax system. He is trying to bring accountability to our military spending. He is trying to give individuals their rights back that were stripped following 9/11, etc. His ideas are different and they are radical, but only because he isn't trying to do "much of the same"...because that just isn't going to work anymore.

I totally agree with you about Obama's failures and how he's stacked his cabinet with re-treads. I had this reaction upon first hearing the names of all his appointees back in 2009.

Yet our system isn't 100% broken. As I said he's my favorite politician who I agree 50% with. We do need to have people who actually break the mold, and I'll grant that Ron Paul is more that person than Barack Obama is. Yet we also don't need to amend to constitution to repeal the direct election of Senators--and somehow that's a mainstream position with a bunch of conservatives/libertarians. Wtf??? I just wish there was someone out there who saw when something works and when something doesn't by actually evaluating things on their merits instead of falling back onto a "Government = Bad" ideology. It's as dangerous to think that as it is to think that government can fix everything.

 

[KillerDiller]

At the Iowa presidential debate, every single candidate--Paul, Bachman, Romney, Huntsman--all of them said they would reject a bill that contained 10x the amount of spending cuts as tax increases. This kind of thinking is deluded. You can say that their position would soften once in office, but the fact is that the Republican base hasn't compromised, so why should we expect that a Republican president would? What they have demonstrated repeatedly in the debt ceiling debate is that they would rather send the economy into a tailspin than vote for something that has only 98% of what their base wants.

 

[KillerDiller]

As dangerous? I don't agree with that. History would tend to suggest big government is often catastrophically malignant.

History also suggests that reigning in the government during a time of economic depression only perpetuates the problem.

 

[roubs]

As dangerous? I don't agree with that. History would tend to suggest big government is often catastrophically malignant.

Is this the argument that some people are/were dictators therefore government cannot be good? Or do you think that there have been Democracies that have been catastrophically malignant? America's imperial meddling has definitely been malignant to some other nations, but as I've stated previously, scaling back from our imperial tendencies is I think the best idea libertarians have to offer.

To me history would tend to suggest that government investment / oversight has allowed us to have a prosperous society today. If the year were 1811 the libertarians of the day would be arguing that big government should never build a road or a canal.

If you have weak/no government there will always be someone powerful with money and influence to step into the void--someone who is not accountable to the people through the electoral process.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Guys, this thread has nothing to do with psychology at this point. Please try to make it psychology-related, or I may close it.

SDN has general forums if you really feel a burning need to discuss politics on here.

Thanks!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

With Congress looking to slash and burn to protect the defense budget, is there a candidate that will actually have the best interest of mental health services in mind?

Better?

 

[Ollie123]

With Congress looking to slash and burn to protect the defense budget, is there a candidate that will actually have the best interest of mental health services in mind?

Better?

This is my big concern, as is our scientific spending. Scientific advancement is one of the few areas I feel we remain a dominant force in the world and while congress doesn't seem QUITE as dedicated to slamming that as a few other areas, cuts are definitely being seen and I worry about the implications for my career - especially if I go for a soft money position where I'd be dependent on grant funding. I also worry about the effects on both the economy and our status in the world more generally if we let our scientific growth slide into obscurity in the name of ideology. This is one area there is simply no way we can rely on the "free market" to move us forward.

One last purely political point: What kind of shape is our political system in that all we can do is pick amongst people who say crazy and idiotic things in the hopes that the one we pick is just acting like a crazy idiot as a bargaining strategy? I'm not willing to roll the dice on those folks. That is essentially what you were saying T4C...and maybe I'm an idealist but all that tells me is that our political system is a mess and we need to dramatically reform that if we're going to achieve anything positive.