Subsidized loans to be X'd

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
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.

Lol...wow! So I guess CNN and MSNBC aren't biased, right? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

This is from the NY Times and it tells how Obama's favorite corporation (GE) pays no taxes...in fact, the government has to pay them with our tax money. Why? Because they finance a significant portion of his campaign. So, the lesson learned here...help Obama and pay no taxes. And YES...YOU are absolutely wrong and you're trying to turn this into a political argument. I'm not interested in politics...but I think it's sort of hypocritical of him to sit up there and screw the middle class using his "greedy jet-owner" slogans whilst he gets those same people out of paying taxes. How many times do we have to prove this to you? Do I need to pull up the companies that paid no taxes...you know, the major contributors to his campaign??? Citi, BoA, etc...it's absolutely amazing how blind people are in this country.

So my question to you...if Obama is this proactive leader on making the super wealthy pay their taxes, how come he doesn't name them and call them out? Your argument saying republicans blocked his attempts make no sense whatsoever! Were you here on planet earth during his first two years when democrats had control of the WH, the senate, AND the HoR? You know, the time during which they shoved Obamacare down our throats without knowing what was in it?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it ended up being 2.1 trillion.

I was referring to the preliminary draft that Obama 'drafted' when they first began meetings that involves cuts and revenue, but I forget the exact number.

You're correct with the tea party and the out of control spending, but it seems just as irresponsible to come into government and not be willing to compromise and work with people to make cuts rather than just be a concrete wall. It's all about their attitudes in my opinion.

Silly Pell grants.
 
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.

Fun fact - combining the House and Senate votes on the debt ceiling compromise there were at total of 101 democrats who voted AGAINST the debt ceiling being raised. 3 more didn't vote at all. Republicans had 85 vote against it. This is on the verge of "default" and an "economic meltdown" and more democrats voted against it. So who's more inflexible again? Seems like democrats to me... (I was actually pretty taken back by these numbers. I initially went to look at them because I knew there would be some democrats that voted against it, I had no idea there would actually be more!)

I'm just saying, if you're going to attack the Tea party for not compromising, be fair about it.

I also don't understand all the hostility and condescending remarks from some of you. The Tea party was started by Americans not feeling like their voices were being heard. Interestingly enough, I didn't hear much talk of compromise when Obamacare was getting shoved down our throats and passed before it was even read. Now that the Republicans are in control of the House, Obama wants compromise.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
I was referring to the preliminary draft that Obama 'drafted' when they first began meetings that involves cuts and revenue, but I forget the exact number.

You're correct with the tea party and the out of control spending, but it seems just as irresponsible to come into government and not be willing to compromise and work with people to make cuts rather than just be a concrete wall. It's all about their attitudes in my opinion.

Silly Pell grants.

I absolutely agree with you. Obviously we can't just stop paying our bills all together (which would have happened). But I think cuts can be made, like sending aid to other countries who use that money to plot attacks against us (billions). Welfare needs major reform...Medicaid and Medicare need major reform. And the list goes on...basically the bigger our government gets, the more they screw the nation up. The republicans are the same thing as the democrats even though they put on a big show. I have no agenda and politics aren't my aim, nor should they be for those we elect and trust to run the country. All they care about (dems AND repubs) is getting re-elected at the expense of the American public.
 
Fun fact - combining the House and Senate votes on the debt ceiling compromise there were at total of 101 democrats who voted AGAINST the debt ceiling being raised. 3 more didn't vote at all. Republicans had 85 vote against it. This is on the verge of "default" and an "economic meltdown" and more democrats voted against it. So who's more inflexible again? Seems like democrats to me... (I was actually pretty taken back by these numbers. I initially went to look at them because I knew there would be some democrats that voted against it, I had no idea there would actually be more!)

I'm just saying, if you're going to attack the Tea party for not compromising, be fair about it.

I also don't understand all the hostility and condescending remarks from some of you. The Tea party washttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss started by Americans not feeling like their voices were being heard. Interestingly enough, I didn't hear much talk of compromise when Obamacare was getting shoved down our throats and passed before it was even read. Now that the Republicans are in control of the House, Obama wants compromise.

Well, I know exactly why Obama let the tea party scream victory. His election is next year, and he can blame the bad economy on this and say he compromised and let them win, yet the economy still sucked. He's very clever with his conniving, I must give it to him! Basically, they're going to try to lay all our nation's debt crisis and horrible economy on the tea party. The tea party is a threat to repubs as well...so I'd be willing to bet my last penny that's what they're (Obama and moderate republicans) going to do. It makes so much sense if you stop and think about it. Truth is, this was not at all a success for the tea party, but do you not remember when the deal first passed...EVERY media source (fox included) said "this is a HUGE victory for the tea party." Obama will be re-elected in 2012 I can almost guarantee it now...and the rest of the republicans that are screwing us all.
 
Last edited:
All of this makes me really ... sad ... to be an American.
 
I find that one's inclinination to dive into partisan political banter is inversely proportional to one's IQ (or likely, and more relevantly, DAT score). I suspect this thread proves my theory.
 
I find that one's inclinination to dive into partisan political banter is inversely proportional to one's IQ (or likely, and more relevantly, DAT score). I suspect this thread proves my theory.

Nicely worded, we're all just wishing we could be as smart as you are, that's all. And yes, one's score on the DAT (a random test) has everything to do with their inclination to dive into partisan politics :highfive:
 
Nicely worded, we're all just wishing we could be as smart as you are, that's all. And yes, one's score on the DAT (a random test) has everything to do with their inclination to dive into partisan politics :highfive:
Glad you agree. :thumbup::thumbup:
 
Glad you agree. :thumbup::thumbup:

Of course, how could I not agree? People that want to know what's going on with their future are stupid people with low IQs. I can't believe people actually care about that kind of stuff.
 
Nicely worded, we're all just wishing we could be as smart as you are, that's all. And yes, one's score on the DAT (a random test) has everything to do with their inclination to dive into partisan politics :highfive:

Finally we have something to agree upon whodat4life haha
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I was hesitant before but now I'm strongly considering joining the military.
 
All of this makes me really ... sad ... to be an American.

i see what you mean, but in reality this is why i love america. people with different opinions who have voices that are heard. we could be under a dictator where we would not even have opposing sides to argue over. america is great!!! I will NEVER be sad to be american!
 
i see what you mean, but in reality this is why i love america. people with different opinions who have voices that are heard. we could be under a dictator where we would not even have opposing sides to argue over. america is great!!! I will NEVER be sad to be american!

:thumbup::thumbup: couldn't have said it any better
 
i see what you mean, but in reality this is why i love america. people with different opinions who have voices that are heard. we could be under a dictator where we would not even have opposing sides to argue over. america is great!!! I will NEVER be sad to be american!

I agree for the most part, however, one could debate the dictatorship point, I feel like our last two presidents did (do) whatever they want(ed). Bush went into Iraq illegally and Obama invaded Libya without consent from Congress. We still have no earthly idea of what we're doing in Libya. Fighting on the side of the "rebels" that have been proven to be connected to Al-Qaeda???

This is where I think we need to change this country...when such an issue as big as a war, trillion dollars of debt ceiling being raised, healthcare, etc...the whole country should be allowed to vote on it. This way, it will make politicians more accountable for their votes and if they don't vote the way their constituents want...we will be able to confront them. Basically, make it to where we can have a PIN code (or whatever you choose) to go on the internet and cast your vote, your votes then get counted by your rep/senator, and he votes according to your voice. Maybe this isn't the best method, but it's a lot better than what we have right now. Politicians in both parties get paid off to sign deals that aren't for the good of the people.
 
I agree for the most part, however, one could debate the dictatorship point, I feel like our last two presidents did (do) whatever they want. Bush went into Iraq illegally and Obama invaded Libya without consent from Congress. We still have no earthly idea of what we're doing in Libya. Fighting on the side of the "rebels" that have been proven to be connected to Al-Qaeda???

This is where I think we need to change this country...when such an issue as big as a war, trillion dollars of debt ceiling being raised, healthcare, etc...the whole country should be allowed to vote on it. This way, it will make politicians more accountable for their votes and if they don't vote the way their constituents want...we will be able to confront them. Basically, make it to where we can have a PIN code (or whatever you choose) to go on the internet and cast your vote, your votes then get counted by your rep/senator, and he votes according to your voice. Maybe this isn't the best method, but it's a lot better than what we have right now. Politicians in both parties get paid off to sign deals that aren't for the good of the people.
I never said it couldn't be better, I just said it could be MUCH worse. I agree things aren't perfect here, but there is absolutely no way in Hell I would choose another country over ours.
 
I never said it couldn't be better, I just said it could be MUCH worse. I agree things aren't perfect here, but there is absolutely no way in Hell I would choose another country over ours.

I don't think I would either, and I completely agree it could be worse. I just think our voices should be represented more effectively.
 
Back to the original topic of the thread though...how will we work this out getting through dental school and having to pay interest on our loans? It's all most can do (myself included) to afford living expenses, much less a grand in student debt interest payments.
 
Back to the original topic of the thread though...how will we work this out getting through dental school and having to pay interest on our loans? It's all most can do (myself included) to afford living expenses, much less a grand in student debt interest payments.

Good question. I don't think we actually "pay" while in School. I think it just accumulates, leading to a larger final debt upon graduation.
 
Good question. I don't think we actually "pay" while in School. I think it just accumulates, leading to a larger final debt upon graduation.

Ahh I see, it's a glitch in our language. When they said "pay" they meant that more of our debt would be accruing interest. That's all we need is to graduate with more debt. I think the max sub. stafford loans one can take out is like 8k/year though. So, in the grand scheme of things maybe it isn't that big of a deal. Before long they'll be trying to raise interest rates as well. Doesn't it floor you to know that just a few years ago people graduated with loans less than 3%?
 
Ahh I see, it's a glitch in our language. When they said "pay" they meant that more of our debt would be accruing interest. That's all we need is to graduate with more debt. I think the max sub. stafford loans one can take out is like 8k/year though. So, in the grand scheme of things maybe it isn't that big of a deal. Before long they'll be trying to raise interest rates as well. Doesn't it floor you to know that just a few years ago people graduated with loans less than 3%?

Absolutely!!!!!
 
I was hesitant before but now I'm strongly considering joining the military.

DO NOT join the military for financial reason only. If you truthfully want to serve your country, great! If not, you really can set yourself for a miserable life because you do have to make sacrifices!
 
DO NOT join the military for financial reason only. If you truthfully want to serve your country, great! If not, you really can set yourself for a miserable life because you do have to make sacrifices!

I couldn't agree more. I was in the Navy for four years and absolutely hated it. I learned a lot from my experience, but it isn't something I enjoyed. The military either fits your personality or it doesn't. I think I would've liked it a lot more if I would have had a family during the time I was serving, but it sucked having no one (family) and being thousands of miles from home. I'm very close to my family, so for some this may not be the case. All in all, I got some discipline and learned how to take care of myself and make good decisions from the deal...and some college money.
 
Honestly, why is it okay for the government to hold a monopoly on student loans? There is absolutely no competition for loan rates right now, and because of that, the government can do anything they want without any regard of the consumer, the students! Please tell me who else is getting returns on their investments anywhere near what the government is getting on student loans? 6.8% on Stafford and 7.9% on grad plus! Compounding interest from the day of disbursement! Loans that will not be forgiven upon filing for bankruptcy! The option to demand full repayment in one lump sum if you default on your repayment, or even at anytime they feel like it! Plus a 1% and 4% origination fee for stafford and grad plus loans respectively-we are paying compounding interest on money that we will never even see! I don't see how any of these terms are fair or reasonable any way. Especially because there is no alternative to federal loans (banks and other lending companies will not give out student loans until you can prove you have exhausted all federal loan options...who do you think made up that rule......)

I honestly hope the government will decide to cut all federal funding for student aid and the private loan companies will be able to compete for our business (via competitive loan terms and reasonable interest rates) in a free market. There will always be a demand for student loans, especially if the government decides to pull all funding. Additionally, universities will not be able to exist when students can't pay their hefty tuition bills because student loans don't exit. Because of this, there will be companies and banks that will step forward and offer competitive private loans when they aren't being bullied by the federal government anymore. I think it's about time we remind the federal government what their place is and where they don't belong...not in our bank accounts and not in our education either!
 
Honestly, why is it okay for the government to hold a monopoly on student loans? There is absolutely no competition for loan rates right now, and because of that, the government can do anything they want without any regard of the consumer, the students! Please tell me who else is getting returns on their investments anywhere near what the government is getting on student loans? 6.8% on Stafford and 7.9% on grad plus! Compounding interest from the day of disbursement! Loans that will not be forgiven upon filing for bankruptcy! The option to demand full repayment in one lump sum if you default on your repayment, or even at anytime they feel like it! Plus a 1% and 4% origination fee for stafford and grad plus loans respectively-we are paying compounding interest on money that we will never even see! I don't see how any of these terms are fair or reasonable any way. Especially because there is no alternative to federal loans (banks and other lending companies will not give out student loans until you can prove you have exhausted all federal loan options...who do you think made up that rule......)

I honestly hope the government will decide to cut all federal funding for student aid and the private loan companies will be able to compete for our business (via competitive loan terms and reasonable interest rates) in a free market. There will always be a demand for student loans, especially if the government decides to pull all funding. Additionally, universities will not be able to exist when students can't pay their hefty tuition bills because student loans don't exit. Because of this, there will be companies and banks that will step forward and offer competitive private loans when they aren't being bullied by the federal government anymore. I think it's about time we remind the federal government what their place is and where they don't belong...not in our bank accounts and not in our education either!

or..

You have the US education system go back the way it was in the 60s (before the bank CEOs got their grubby hands on US policy makers to change the laws in their favour).... which I believe is similar to the way it is in most other countries around the world where the government gives money directly to public universities such that its subsidizing education to a reasonable level for its citizens!

As an Australian.. I was able to get both a science degree and a dental degree and only had to pay between around $1,000 to $5,000 each year in tuition TOTAL! Nothing else to pay. The Australian government even gives us the option to pay later after we graduate once we are making over around 40kAUD annually and can afford to contribute something back to paying off our education debt (and they don't charge us any interest!!!) again.. because tertiary education is viewed in our society as highly valued and a necessity same as primary and secondary education. That doesn't mean that everyone should go to University... many people can use the same government funding for post high school skills training certificate/diploma programs such as TAFE (aka community college or apprenticeship programs: electrician, plumbing, etc).

Doesn't that make more sense than raping students by leading them into high interest loans provided by private banks backed up by the US government?? What a rort!! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
or..

You have the US education system go back the way it was in the 60s (before the bank CEOs got their grubby hands on US policy makers to change the laws in their favour).... which I believe is similar to the way it is in most other countries around the world where the government gives money directly to public universities such that its subsidizing education to a reasonable level for its citizens!

As an Australian.. I was able to get both a science degree and a dental degree and only had to pay between around $1,000 to $5,000 each year in tuition TOTAL! Nothing else to pay. The Australian government even gives us the option to pay later after we graduate once we are making over around 40kAUD annually and can afford to contribute something back to paying off our education debt (and they don't charge us any interest!!!) again.. because tertiary education is viewed in our society as highly valued and a necessity same as primary and secondary education. That doesn't mean that everyone should go to University... many people can use the same government funding for post high school skills training certificate/diploma programs such as TAFE (aka community college or apprenticeship programs: electrician, plumbing, etc).

Doesn't that make more sense than raping students by leading them into high interest loans provided by private banks backed up by the US government?? What a rort!! :rolleyes:

and you have amazing beaches...I miss Bondi :(

If you want private loans, they are out there. I ended up borrowing 80K from my credit union at 5% fixed interest and no origination fee. These types of loans might be difficult to come across, but they are there.
 
and you have amazing beaches...I miss Bondi :(

If you want private loans, they are out there. I ended up borrowing 80K from my credit union at 5% fixed interest and no origination fee. These types of loans might be difficult to come across, but they are there.

Damn...
 
Honestly, why is it okay for the government to hold a monopoly on student loans? There is absolutely no competition for loan rates right now, and because of that, the government can do anything they want without any regard of the consumer, the students! Please tell me who else is getting returns on their investments anywhere near what the government is getting on student loans? 6.8% on Stafford and 7.9% on grad plus! Compounding interest from the day of disbursement! Loans that will not be forgiven upon filing for bankruptcy! The option to demand full repayment in one lump sum if you default on your repayment, or even at anytime they feel like it! Plus a 1% and 4% origination fee for stafford and grad plus loans respectively-we are paying compounding interest on money that we will never even see! I don't see how any of these terms are fair or reasonable any way. Especially because there is no alternative to federal loans (banks and other lending companies will not give out student loans until you can prove you have exhausted all federal loan options...who do you think made up that rule......)

I honestly hope the government will decide to cut all federal funding for student aid and the private loan companies will be able to compete for our business (via competitive loan terms and reasonable interest rates) in a free market. There will always be a demand for student loans, especially if the government decides to pull all funding. Additionally, universities will not be able to exist when students can't pay their hefty tuition bills because student loans don't exit. Because of this, there will be companies and banks that will step forward and offer competitive private loans when they aren't being bullied by the federal government anymore. I think it's about time we remind the federal government what their place is and where they don't belong...not in our bank accounts and not in our education either!

That is not actually true. No one is holding a gun to your head telling you to borrow from uncle sam. At any time, if you or your parents have the credit you can go to a bank and get a loan from the bank to pay for school. The thing is that in most cases you will be paying more if you go through a private financial institution or you will be denied. Even the unsubsidized loans are disbursed at an artificially low interest rate compared to what is widely available to consumers at that time. Now what is deplorable is that the federal government has private banks administer the loans and collect a fee instead of cutting out that middleman and directly lending to the student saving millions that unnecessarily goes to private banks instead of the government. If anything we need less of the private sector in this whole arrangment not more.
 
Aye, I agree.

I think education should be sub. heavier like it was back 30-40 yrs ago. I was talking to an admin one day and they were showing me how, adjusted for inflation, my state schools cost of attendence has not gone up much but gov funds have been cut way back. In turn students are taking out alot more loans, while the tax base gets a holiday, I wonder how many of them got their education largely paid for by the state 20+ yrs ago to now turn around and say "my money - I'm self made".
 
So does that mean starting July 2012 they won't give out NEW subsidized grad loans or they will STOP subsidizing ALL grad loans?...And when does this policy expire? :mad:
 
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??

The USA is really in a $100 TRILLION debt yet our politicians argued and passed some fraudulent debt agreement to reduce maybe $2 trillion while adding up another $8-$12 trillion in debt. We are simply bankrupt and there is no solution and no way out and no 'if', 'or','but'. The cuts will alway hit social safety program and education first because they're the easiest to cut, unfortunately. If they don't pretend to take care of the debt to please the rating agency, then interest will rise dramatically on your student loans, car loans, home loans, etc.
 
Last edited:
This seems pretty inaccurate - by a factor of ~10.

A great solution is tax reform; make the effective tax rate on the wealthy (1mill+/yr) and corperations greater than 25%.

We are spending around 25% of GDP while our revenue is ~15%. I agree that have to close that gap but lets do it with ways that dont ruin future prospects. For example: means test medicare/SS, move SS and medicare benfits to 65 (people are living longer than when it was created), and lower our defense and national aid budget by alot. By doing tax revenue changes and entitlement reform we would most likely run a surplus.

The USA is really in a $100 TRILLION debt yet our politicians argued and passed some fraudulent debt agreement to reduce maybe $2 trillion while adding up another $8-$12 trillion in debt. We are simply bankrupt and there is no solution and no way out and no 'if', 'or','but'. The cuts will alway hit social safety program and education first because they're the easiest to cut, unfortunately. If they don't pretend to take care of the debt to please the rating agency, then interest will rise dramatically on your student loans, car loans, home loans, etc.
 
Last edited:
This seems pretty inaccurate - by a factor of ~10.

A great solution is tax reform; make the effective tax rate on the wealthy (1mill+/yr) and corperations greater than 25%.

We are spending around 25% of GDP while our revenue is ~15%. I agree that have to close that gap but lets do it with ways that dont ruin future prospects. For example: means test medicare/SS, move SS and medicare benfits to 65 (people are living longer than when it was created), and lower our defense and national aid budget by alot. By doing tax revenue changes and entitlement reform we would most likely run a surplus.

So now the wealthy is defined as over 1 mill a year? That's quite a bit different then Obama's definition...(250K anyone?) When you account for state income tax, sales tax, and property tax, the wealthy's tax contribution far exceeds 25%.

Why does your tax reform plan not include reform for the bottom 51% that pay NO taxes, some of whom actually get money back? Personally, I think the wealthy have enough of a tax burden. Maybe it's time for the bottom half to start pitching in more... I've worked hard to be where I am and when I start actually making money, I want to decide what I do with it, not irresponsible politicians that cater to their base to get re-elected.

The entitlement attitude that our society has is pretty sickening. Nobody seems to care who's paying for what, it's just constant "Gimme, gimme, gimme". The fraud and misuse of programs like food stamps and section 8 is disgusting.

By the way, you're SS reform is already in place to an extent. You can't get full retirement benefits until 67 but you can qualify for benefits at 62. A better question is, why do you only have to work for 10 years to qualify for benefits?
 
This seems pretty inaccurate - by a factor of ~10.

This from USAToday: "The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for."

The $14 trillion nonsense you hear from MSM are nonsense for simpleton like you, based on manipulated government accounting method that would send us to jail if we use the same method. Add deficit obligations from cities, counties, states and you'll quickly run past the $100 trillion mark. Grab the newest issue of Bloomberg Businessweek and you'll know what I mean. This deficit fight our country went through he last month was nothing in comparison to what's coming. Without the Tea Party nuts, the average joe is really too stupid to realize the shenanigan that's taking us down the cliff.
 
This seems pretty inaccurate - by a factor of ~10.

A great solution is tax reform; make the effective tax rate on the wealthy (1mill+/yr) and corperations greater than 25%.

We are spending around 25% of GDP while our revenue is ~15%. I agree that have to close that gap but lets do it with ways that dont ruin future prospects. For example: means test medicare/SS, move SS and medicare benfits to 65 (people are living longer than when it was created), and lower our defense and national aid budget by alot. By doing tax revenue changes and entitlement reform we would most likely run a surplus.

Good idea, but it will never happen? Why? Because those wealthy companies/CEOs give money to whoever is in office to get out of taxes. I agree with you theoretical numbers, just saying it will never happen.
 
So now the wealthy is defined as over 1 mill a year? That's quite a bit different then Obama's definition...(250K anyone?) When you account for state income tax, sales tax, and property tax, the wealthy's tax contribution far exceeds 25%.

Why does your tax reform plan not include reform for the bottom 51% that pay NO taxes, some of whom actually get money back? Personally, I think the wealthy have enough of a tax burden. Maybe it's time for the bottom half to start pitching in more... I've worked hard to be where I am and when I start actually making money, I want to decide what I do with it, not irresponsible politicians that cater to their base to get re-elected.

The entitlement attitude that our society has is pretty sickening. Nobody seems to care who's paying for what, it's just constant "Gimme, gimme, gimme". The fraud and misuse of programs like food stamps and section 8 is disgusting.

By the way, you're SS reform is already in place to an extent. You can't get full retirement benefits until 67 but you can qualify for benefits at 62. A better question is, why do you only have to work for 10 years to qualify for benefits?

I agree lol...making 250k/year only to have nearly half of it stripped from you by the government is a LONNNNNGGGG way from being rich.

In 1987, the wealthiest individuals in America paid 25% of taxes while the bottom earners paid 6%. In 2007, the wealthiest paid 40% and the bottom earners paid 3%. Obviously this isn't the answer.

Our president is destroying the middle class, which includes small business owners.

Democrats and Republicans should rename themselves to Socialists and Capitalists, respectively.
 
Last edited:
I typed a long response but it was lost due to my connection.

http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2011-06-07-Debt_ST_U.htm

This is the article - I read it - it's not the real national debt. The 14T is the amount our nation currently owes. Not the amount we may owe in the future assuming a-z if we had to pay for it all today. You can hardly say this source is academic either.

I dont think I'm a simpleton because I dont agree with your politics.

Edit: MSM = Newscorp. They have the most viewership and are therefore the main stream.

WhoDAT: If you look further into our nations tax history you'll find that tax rates were much, much, higher than they are today. 60-70%. But I agree with you about 250k not being "rich". Most people who earn that are people who have worked and gave up alot of lost years in income to get educations or build a business. They have a huge opportunity cost they're recovering from that is not easily cleared at that income level.


This from USAToday: "The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for."

The $14 trillion nonsense you hear from MSM are nonsense for simpleton like you, based on manipulated government accounting method that would send us to jail if we use the same method. Add deficit obligations from cities, counties, states and you'll quickly run past the $100 trillion mark. Grab the newest issue of Bloomberg Businessweek and you'll know what I mean. This deficit fight our country went through he last month was nothing in comparison to what's coming. Without the Tea Party nuts, the average joe is really too stupid to realize the shenanigan that's taking us down the cliff.
 
Last edited:
I typed a long response but it was lost due to my connection.

http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2011-06-07-Debt_ST_U.htm

This is the article - I read it - it's not the real national debt. The 14T is the amount our nation currently owes. Not the amount we may owe in the future assuming a-z if we had to pay for it all today. You can hardly say this source is academic either.

I dont think I'm a simpleton because I dont agree with your politics.

Edit: MSM = Newscorp. They have the most viewership and are therefore the main stream.

WhoDAT: If you look further into our nations tax history you'll find that tax rates were much, much, higher than they are today. 60-70%. But I agree with you about 250k not being "rich". Most people who earn that are people who have worked and gave up alot of lost years in income to get educations or build a business. They have a huge opportunity cost they're recovering from that is not easily cleared at that income level.

In my opinion, they should create an entirely different tax bracket for those making ~250k-1 million or so. That bracket should get massive tax breaks simply because the private sector is where most jobs need to be created. I wrote a long, drawn out post on how the typical dentist will struggle coming out of school with 350k+ in student loan debt because with the tax brackets like they are now...something has to give. Either lower interest rates on student loans for healthcare professionals (due to the massive principal) or restructure the tax code, preferably both. No one should have to pay their entire working life for an education...especially in an advanced nation like ours'. The government is causing schools to charge more for student loans on purpose though, so they can draw more interest. It's a great deal for the schools and the government, but students are getting raped. Until students decide to just sit out and show them that they will either come down on prices and interest rates, or no one at the schools will have jobs. I think students should form their own union and get this situation under control. A dental education should not cost any more than 150k (with undergrad debt included). And that 150k should not be at some stupid ridiculous interest rate either, make it like 2-3% where people can afford to make it.
 
Man, now you're speaking my language lol. I have thought about this alot. You make alot of really good points. One thing I wish could happen, but most likely will never occur, is that in the future write offs for medicare/caid would be used as write offs for provider salary. For example if you as a dentist treat a guy and accept his medicare but the market price for the therapy is X but you get 1/2X; then you would get 1/2X as a tax deduction. OR at least let us write off our student loan payments!


On a more realistic note: I plan to work in an underserved setting and live in a studio apt my first five years postgrad to get out from under all that debt and make some headway. I've been lucky in UG as it's paid for by past military service.


In my opinion, they should create an entirely different tax bracket for those making ~250k-1 million or so. That bracket should get massive tax breaks simply because the private sector is where most jobs need to be created. I wrote a long, drawn out post on how the typical dentist will struggle coming out of school with 350k+ in student loan debt because with the tax brackets like they are now...something has to give. Either lower interest rates on student loans for healthcare professionals (due to the massive principal) or restructure the tax code, preferably both. No one should have to pay their entire working life for an education...especially in an advanced nation like ours'. The government is causing schools to charge more for student loans on purpose though, so they can draw more interest. It's a great deal for the schools and the government, but students are getting raped. Until students decide to just sit out and show them that they will either come down on prices and interest rates, or no one at the schools will have jobs. I think students should form their own union and get this situation under control. A dental education should not cost any more than 150k (with undergrad debt included). And that 150k should not be at some stupid ridiculous interest rate either, make it like 2-3% where people can afford to make it.
 
Man, now you're speaking my language lol. I have thought about this alot. You make alot of really good points. One thing I wish could happen, but most likely will never occur, is that in the future write offs for medicare/caid would be used as write offs for provider salary. For example if you as a dentist treat a guy and accept his medicare but the market price for the therapy is X but you get 1/2X; then you would get 1/2X as a tax deduction. OR at least let us write off our student loan payments!


On a more realistic note: I plan to work in an underserved setting and live in a studio apt my first five years postgrad to get out from under all that debt and make some headway. I've been lucky in UG as it's paid for by past military service.

Ha, you know that's a really good idea! Something has to be done, we know that for sure. I think when people look at the salaries of dentists, they don't understand how big of a chunk of that money goes out for taxes/student loans/practice payments, etc...It's completely unfair for 250k-1 mil/year earners to be grouped with billionaires. Because what happens (with every president, not just President Obama) is these billionaires go lobby him and make sweet deals with him/the government to get out of paying taxes. Something has to be done about that because if you really want the truth, that's killing our economy among many other issues they have screwed up miserably.

BTW, I'm doing NHSC so same here. I'm probably going to end up going back home to the south in a rural area. Most people hate living in the country, but I grew up there...so it's a win win for me. There are like 9 openings for NHSC Scholars in the immediate area I grew up in. I just hope I get it!
 
Democrats and Republicans should rename themselves to Socialists and Capitalists, respectively.

I don't think I would call the mainstream republican party capitalists per se. I know they "claim" to be, but they meddle just as much as the Dems. Probably one of the only true supporters of capitalism and states' rights in Washington currently is Ron Paul, and the Republican party treats him like a leper.

As far as I can tell, both parties are similarly corrupted. Both want to grow the size of government and both will bankrupt us, just by different means. Republicans seem to want to do it through an unsustainable foreign policy of empire building that would be appalling to our founding fathers. The Dems seem to want to do it through social programs. Either way, we end up bankrupt.

Frankly, I'm tired of both parties and believe the majority should be charged with treason for the way they have heaped crushing debt on future generations.
 
I don't think I would call the mainstream republican party capitalists per se. I know they "claim" to be, but they meddle just as much as the Dems. Probably one of the only true supporters of capitalism and states' rights in Washington currently is Ron Paul, and the Republican party treats him like a leper.

As far as I can tell, both parties are similarly corrupted. Both want to grow the size of government and both will bankrupt us, just by different means. Republicans seem to want to do it through an unsustainable foreign policy of empire building that would be appalling to our founding fathers. The Dems seem to want to do it through social programs. Either way, we end up bankrupt.

Frankly, I'm tired of both parties and believe the majority should be charged with treason for the way they have heaped crushing debt on future generations.

Very well said and I agree with everything you've written.
 
Well, S&P just downgraded the debt of the US of A. No good, but somewhat expected. Hopefully that will not result in further cuts in educational spending. Maybe instead they ought to let Fannie Mae fail already. #frustratedandventing
 
Well, S&P just downgraded the debt of the US of A. No good, but somewhat expected. Hopefully that will not result in further cuts in educational spending. Maybe instead they ought to let Fannie Mae fail already. #frustratedandventing

This is what Obama and Congress are doing :soexcited::highfive::clap::bow:
 
"Now that Standard & Poor's sparkling, perfect triple-A rating of U.S. Treasury securities has dropped to AA-plus, what does this mean for you and me? It's like our collective 850 credit score has been downgraded below 720 -- from beyond excellent to good but not spectacular.

A downgrade is uncharted territory for the U.S., but one outcome seems likely: Americans could face higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other consumer loans. Business probably will also have to pay more to borrow money, which isn't helpful to the economy. Post continues after video.

"If there's a downgrade, and it looks likely, it's quite easy to say that interest rates will go up," Chris Christopher Jr., a senior principal economist at IHS Global Insight, said in a Bankrate.com article several days ago. "And in the end there will be a lower demand for loans, so short-term funding costs will go up for banks."

But remember, this has never happened before. The Hill's On the Money blog said earlier today: "A downgrade would deliver a psychological blow, as the nation would lose its top rating for the first time in its history, but it is unclear what the financial fallout might be."

Here are some possibilities:

Higher taxes. The interest on Treasurys will go up to reflect their higher risk, which means the cost of the nation's debt will increase accordingly. And the U.S. can't continue to maintain this course of no tax hikes indefinitely. The resistance to higher taxes by some politicians in the debt ceiling deal suggests the country isn't serious about paying its bills and is considered one of the reasons for the lower rating.

Stephen Gandel wrote at Time:
Not all of the country's debt will have to be refinanced, but if it did a 1.15% higher interest rate would cost the country roughly $170 billion more a year in borrowing costs. The cost to the average American household, if it were passed along in higher taxes, would be about $1,550 a year.

Higher homebuying costs. Interest rates on mortgages track Treasury yields. "A 1.15% higher rate on a $200,000 loan would raise your interest payments by $36,573 over the course of the mortgage," Gandel said.

Guy Cecala, the publisher of trade magazine Inside Mortgage Finance, told Bankrate that homebuyers could face higher fees as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs absorbed higher borrowing costs.

Higher inflation. If that's a result, you'll need to stash away even more money for retirement. (Are you saving enough for retirement now? Try MSN Money's calculator.)

The lower rating is no surprise. CNBC said, "On July 14, S&P put the government on a credit watch with negative implications, meaning there was at least a one in two chance the U.S.'s long-term debt would be downgraded within 90 days."

Special coverage of the debt deal

The other two rating services, Fitch and Moody's, left their triple-A rating for U.S. debt unchanged earlier this week but with the prospect that they'd reconsider at a later date.

Rejoining the small group of nations with the top rating -- 15 now that the U.S. has dropped out -- normally takes at least 10 years, Felix Salmon wrote at Reuters.
Australia, for instance, was downgraded in 1986, and only got back into the club in 2003. The record from downgrade to reinstatement is held by Canada, which was downgraded in October 1992, and got its triple-A back 9 years and 9 months later in July 2002.

Losing membership in such an exclusive club has got to hurt, at least a bit.

USA Today wrote:
The real hit could be to business and consumer confidence, already fragile in a weak economy. A downgrade "would be a real shock to the American psychology," says (Howard) Simons (a strategist at Bianco Research).

Eric Dash at The New York Times added:
For most Americans, the prospect that the government could lose its vaunted AAA credit rating is almost unthinkable -- a blow to national pride and consumer confidence that could turn out to be more damaging than any increase in borrowing costs."

-MSN Money
 
Crap - so what would happen if the majority of physicians just say "no" and stop treating medicare pateints?

My derm doesnt accept medicare and neither does the allergy guy next to him... I wonder if this is a common practice. Gen Y/X is larger than the baby boomers - do you think there are enough patients to go around without having to treat medicare patients?

Health care providers wary as 'super committee' tackles debt
http://www.ctmirror.org/story/13502/healthcaredebtdeal
 
Top