Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Dental' started by SoulPower, Aug 1, 2011.
Just read this on cnn.com, thought you guys might find it interesting.
wow! how does a student, especially a dental/med student at a school where it costs 400k to get your education afford to pay for this?
Not that big of a deal. Especially those going to 350k+ schools. Going from 315k unsubsidized to 350k unsubsidized will not be the end of the world. But if we don't start tackling our national debt we will all be paying way more in taxes in the future. So pay now or pay later!
We will all be paying more in taxes in the future anyway, regardless of this issue.
My point is that we all (except Obama) realize that there needs to be cuts in government spending, but as soon as it affects "me" the cut is dumb. I know we will be paying more anyway, but if there aren't cuts we will be paying even more. taking away the subsidized loans is just a drop in the bucket off debt we are going into.
It is going to spiral out of control, for several reasons.
1. Politicians can't touch certain things, like social security, medicare, medicaid. The problem is, these programs make up most of the US budget, by a large margin. (~50%: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg)
2. If you can't touch the problem from the biggest sources, then you can't solve the problem.
We've known that SS has been insolvent for 30 years. Why do we not do anything about it?
They should be putting more money into subsidizing education!
The United States charges its own citizens more to get a University and Professional education than any other country in the world!
If you are going to make claims like that, you need to take other things into account. Most countries in the world also tax their citizens more than the US. When more money is taken in by the government via taxes, then have more money available to pay for the education. Plus, we are one of the most selfish, what can you do for me countries in the world. We want things but aren't willing to pay back. You can only have it one way - either 1. get cheaper tuition and pay more in taxes and interest or 2. pay more for your education.
Hey guys... this is America. The bigger, more important question, is how do we pass this added cost onto our future patients?
In a simular thread how most organizations place taxes into the cost of their product we also have to build the cost of our educations into the cost of dentistry.
It's a Dog eat dog world - take no prisoners!
Here in Australia I pay significantly less taxes than the Canadians, but only slightly more than the Americans. Honestly, I don't think I pay much more in taxes than your average California state resident in my tax bracket. Yet... I get (universal healthcover through Medicare, good public schools, extremely heavily subsidized education, low malpractice insurance, etc) ... at the end of the day.. even though my taxes are "slightly" higher (although not by much) I probably net more than my average American colleague because I have less outgoings (no need for private schools for the kids, much lower malpractice, MUCH lower private health insurance, and almost no university debt after graduation from dental school). Our currency is even higher now $1AUD=$1.10USD. That being said.. some things are much more expensive here.. such as luxury cars (Porsche boxter starts at 115,000 AUD = 127,000 USD).. also apartments/houses in the big cities (Melbourne, Sydney, etc) cost equal to or more than living in London, NYC, LA, Tokyo, etc.
Australia can control their population to a much greater degree because our borders are ocean! (no one gets into the country without the proper documentation and you can't stay unless you have proof you have a productive job offer and can and will be paying Australian Taxes)
Also, we only have about 30mil people living in Australia where as in the US you probably have at least 30 mil living as illegals. So that is another challenge you have.
I just feel very strongly about education. Especially when the US wants to start moving from a predominately importing country to a predominately exporting country and help to create jobs etc. The last thing they should be doing is cutting away funding for education and skills development programs. How is that ment to help the economy??
Aren't there other sources of spending that could be cut before eating into the education budget??
I really feel for you guys right now..
Dr. Millisevert, I will be graduating next year. Are you looking for an associate? Always wanted to live in Australia.
Australia is one of the few countries that pays less per capita income than the US. If you look at the European countries, they pay 30 to 60% more in personal income taxes, and that doesn't include the other taxes levies.
There are plenty of ways to trim the budget - but you have democrats on one side and republicans on the other who can't agree to where cuts should be made.
I do believe Obama's formulation of the bill included 4 trillion dollars in cuts, which is larger than the final Boehner Bill.
Hahahahaha you're crazy if you really believe that!! That's a good one. Any other good jokes?
He was correct. The talks were coming out such that there would 3.25T in cuts along with 850B in tax revenue via reforming the tax code - broaden the base, lower the rates - by getting rid of write offs.
But in the end the majority leader left the room because that would have been too good of press for the president. The tea-party only survives via crisis - even if it's self invented.
Nope Maygyver was incorrect. He/she said there was 4 billion in CUTS in the president's plan. That is false. As you said there was 3 billion in cuts and a billion in tax increases through closing tax loopholes. Your point about the obstructionist republican tea baggers was correct though.
Social security will be solvent as long as you raise minimum retirement age a few years which should really be done anyway considering our increasing lifespans.
The deficit in our budget for the past decade has been made up of 3 things, when you get rid of them and are not in the second great depression anymore, you are not looking at deficits.
1. Bush's Tax Cuts 2. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 3. Bush's Medicare Part D
Thats the deficit whole deficit right there and if we completely did away with all three we would return to the dark days of the late 90's (low unemployment/budget surplus). To all of you dentists that complain about how high your taxes are consider this. It is a well documented fact that wealth disparity increases under republican presidents and decreases under democratic presidents. That wealth disparity increased dramatically under Presidents Reagan and GWB. We have the highest wealth disparity in this country right now since the great depression. People will feed themselves before they see a dentist but they'll see a dentist before they buy a bigger house. There are only so many teeth in the heads of the wealthy. Unless you want to evaporate your patient base overnight, you'll want to support higher taxes on the wealthy and transfer payments to those unable to support themselves. Or keep complaining about the extra thousand uncle sam takes out of your paycheck and see where that gets you.
here's a link in case you think i'm just making this up.
I think they should cut Pell Grants as well, people should have to pay the costs of their own education.
Nice CNN spin.
Actually income inequality rose dramatically during the Clinton years as well.
I think you are way oversimplifying things. The President of the US does not single handedly control our economy. You say that income inequality increases during Republican presidencies but Obama has been in office how long? Or should you point blame retroactively...
There are a gazillion reasons we have a deficit. Some created by republicans, some by democrats. I, for one, have enjoyed this debt ceiling debate as I knew from day 1 that it wasn't a crisis, but a platform to discuss our country's economic future.
I will say however, that I don't know one wealthy person that feels more "patriotic" by paying more taxes.
Wait, what? the tea party invented the crisis? Explain that one...
I first would like to say that I sympathize with a lot of what the tea party stands for. However, I feel they were irresponsible by pushing to link the debt ceiling to historical budget cuts. That was an artificial association that put our countries credit rating at risk.
IMO it was a bad decision because the debt limit increase is to pay for bills that have already passed by our legistlative process. Passed bills have every right to be paid for or repealed via legislation that directly cuts spending to those programs; not by refusing to raise an artificial debt limit.
Put simply - if the GOP is a dog - the tea party (the tail) is wagging them. 2010 sent the message that if you're an R and you 'deal' you're finished come electon day. They want idealogically pure candidates in office, not people that are willing to work out a deal with a democratic office.
Isn't that how democracy works? People elect representatives, representatives represent their constituency?
I don't see how tea party politicians saying "I'll raise the debt ceiling if we make future cuts and balance our budget" is "inventing a crisis".
It is creating a crisis because they are not willing to compromise with the other side AT ALL when it comes to balancing the budget. For example, here is Michelle Bachmann trying to appeal to the tea party base by stating that she will not vote for the debt ceiling increase http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q082UbDIxdw&feature=pyv . To Tea Party politicians, the word "compromise" has become taboo. They would not even agree to close large corporate tax loopholes, which is essentially the rich cheating out of paying for taxes. If any other average citizen cheats with taxes, they get caught and thrown in jail.
For things to get done in Washington, it is essential that both sides compromise. If one side does not compromise at all ( the tea party) they are very much holding the rest of the country hostage. By allowing the country to default because not every one of their goals has been met is also very much inventing a crisis.
or they get a job in the whitehouse working with obama
Or is it a crisis because the President was constantly threatening default, not paying social security, etc directly to the American people?
Tea party representatives clearly say (and stand by) the principle that you don't raise taxes in a recession. Something that Obama said on the campaign trail (which he's apparently forgotten). That leaves only ONE way to balance the budget - cut spending. Why is it so horrible or extreme to say if we're going to raise the debt ceiling AGAIN, which we can't do forever, let's put forth legislation to balance the budget?
Bachmann doesn't speak for the Tea party anymore than I do. It's simply a group of citizens that are tired of the current administrations policies.
I don't see how the rich using legal tax loopholes is similar to a poor (or rich) person illegally not paying taxes. But apparently you don't get thrown in jail for it, you get re-elected (see Rangel, Charlie)
Again, the word compromise. Sigh. The House passed multiple bills that were rejected by the Senate Majority leader before they even got there. Seems to me like the democrats are just as unwilling as the republicans. And you know what? I don't have a problem with that. I don't mind seeing politicians fight for what they campaigned on instead of pandering to each other to get votes.
I agree with you! What I can't understand for the life of me is #1) How is a business making 250k referred to as "greedy, billionaire, yacht/jet-owning fat cats?" #2) Why doesn't Obama call out those companies he allowed to not pay taxes because they contributed to his campaign. Isn't he causing the same problem he's fussing about? I'm confused...I thought this was "hope" and "change."
You're conflating two issues. Read my last post - we raise the debt ceiling due to past legislation. The president never said that he would not pay for essential services; he simply said that he could not guarantee it, which he could not.
The president and house majority leader were working on a bill to cut much more than what was passed. The 'purity' of the tea party was what caused the majority leader to back off. The issue was not an increase in tax rates; it was to cut out deduction that would cause the effective tax rate to go up on business. This was a suggestion of the 2010 bipartisan debt commission.
Dude, stop drinking the tea!
Sooo, he proposed an increase in taxes during a recession. Ok, glad we got that straightened out.
I just hope you guys remember your arguments 10 - 15 years down the road when you're running your own business and the government wants to raise taxes on you. I hope you will still be so noble...
Yeah, lowering the rates and getting rid of deductions that wont be available to me as a small business owner sounds great. Two 1/4's of positive GDP growth = no recession.
Dude, what did I say! Get off the tea!
I hope you realize that the guy from GE that President Obama appointed is a self described REPUBLICAN and that appointing him was meant to help appease REPUBLICAN businesspeople. Its not like GE was the only company to take advantage of the ridiculous tax loopholes and tax cuts the republicans fought for.
If you're so angry about businesses not paying any taxes, Obama is not the guy you should be complaining about. Its the republicans. Do I think we should have a corporate tax? No, its too easy to dodge and encourages companies to take their business overseas. What we should have is a value added tax like the rest of the civilized world. Getting rid of the expensive and useless penny and converting to metric would also be nice, but the old timey republicans don't take too kindly to newfangled ideas like that. Oh well the average tea bagger is very old and it won't be long before some people with rudimentary understandings of science and economics start getting elected again. Just make sure to do your part and vote for the people that want to bring america into the 21st century instead of the 19th century.
That's not the guy I'm referring to...
Australians in general are one of the most procrastinating nations in the world. They get about 30 days off from work as public holidays, where here in the US we get about 7. Productivity wise, Americans work harder and therefore are taxed less.
Anyways, the "automatic triggers" they just passed is going to be real problem for the US economy.
FWIW, most of the "tea baggers" I know are under 40.
Oh so I guess it's just a coincidence that the major large companies that don't pay any taxes contributed big bucks to Obama's campaign, right?
"rudimentary understandings huh?" lol...if you're incapable of understanding that the tea party only wants the government to stop spending more than they take in...I really don't know what to say. Is that how you make your budget? More going out than coming in each month? If so, please let me in on the secret of how to make this work.
Honestly, too lazy to read the rest of the thread at the moment, but I was just throwing the ball park number out there. I thought it was 4, apparently it was 3, but I think my point stands.
Edit: Read the rest and posted below.
This is how I feel about the Tea Party and the situation. It scares me that they were willing to have the country fall off a cliff and default because of their inflexibility.
Also, I kind of agree about the Pell Grants. I would rather see them cut Pell Grants and continue subsidized. It sounds like more of an even playing field to me.
We weren't going to default. That is called a scare tactic.
Actually, it ended up being 2.1 trillion.
The people in the positions of treasury & those with advanced economic degrees disagree with your statement - but Palin supports what you say so it must be true.
But really, we should have let our credit down grade and all the default stuff slide - it doesnt play well for the tea party and we need to focus on important issues: Is Obama muslum? Is he even an American? and what can we do to get rid of these death panels!?
You are absolutely wrong that Obama is to blame. Throughout the entire debt negotiations, Obama fought to end the corporate tax loopholes and make sure that the "biggest corporations and richest Americans pay their fair share." The REPUBLICANS have blocked all of his efforts, mostly due to the no new tax pledge most of them signed. He has had numerous press conferences where he encouraged congress to get rid of tax payer subsidies to oil companies and tax loopholes to billionaires....but obviously you either didn't watch these conferences or weren't paying any attention at all.... here is his speech from early yesterday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOGrq9uVfPg .... I suggest actually listening to him instead of right wing media that I am sure you get your information from...probably fox news.
The tea party is trying to reverse the current trend. Currently, our debt is 98% if GDP (which is bad). When Obama took office, it was 40% (which is still really bad, obviously). All the tea party is trying to do is to make politicians do their job and come up with a balanced budget. Right now, our government spends around 300 billion dollars/month. The revenues they are taking in are around 180 billion. That's 120 billion dollars that we are borrowing and paying massive interest on. Cuts are going to have to happen somewhere...and if we just keep blindly running up the debt and borrowing more and more, it will make the inevitable recession/depression we're about to run into that much worse. People like our president should lead by example and start exposing the people he keeps referring to that aren't paying any taxes. They're destroying the middle class....because the bracket for billionaires is the same exact bracket for people earning 250k+ per year. If you think about it, he's letting the evil billionaires off because they're contributing to his campaign...so the same people he's complaining and whining about nonstop are the same ones he's letting get off free. So, who gets screwed? The closer (above) a business makes to 250k, the harder they're hit by taxes. Currently, it's 33% and if you factor in state taxes (11% here in CA)...that's 44% of what you make. This is absurd, this is the only country in the world that taxes their people so highly. Back to the point, it's going to take lots of years before we ever see the light of day from this debt. We will become slaves to our debt.
I actually agree with your point about pell grants. With the citizens paying as high as we do in taxes, our education should be extremely inexpensive or even free. The government has caused tuition to skyrocket by allowing people to be eligible for more. If you think about it, the more we owe coming out of school, the more interest they can suck from us. But this is a debate for another day.
Once again...absolutely wrong that Obama is trying to protect billionaires... I literally have no idea where you are getting this information???
and you probably watch cnn, abc and every other liberal left wing channel besides fox news
LOL. Face it Mr. 24, you've been owned. I'ts been great speaking with you and venting some of my frustration about the direction of this country on this board but I need to stop.
Take care, GL with your dental career. Just please, lay off the right wing news programming & I'll watch a little more Fox. Deal?
hahahaha you too.