Obamney 2012 - Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate

ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Two questions, WHO is paying off the ENTIRE loan upon graduation? And more importantly HOW?
Its simple companies can compete for to sign or draft top students in the nation. Kind of like athletes but this is far more important.
 
Invycktus

Invycktus

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
So this carbon tax malarchy. This impacts all O&G companies?

Or everyone?

I am fecked either way. My consulting is all around utilities!
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Two questions, WHO is paying off the ENTIRE loan upon graduation? And more importantly HOW? And yes Pell Grants are vitally important to college students. I have a friend who's income jumped from early 30k to over 70k, as she earned her degree and became a paralegal at a law firm, all this as a direct result of Pell Grants. Now she spends more, which is a good thing for the economy and just purchased her first home. Education and easier access to it, opens the doors to growth, both personally, and economically.
You remove the pell grant system as it is, and use that funding (or more if necessary) to pay those loans off on graduation. I'm not sure what you mean as a how, this would be a specialized student loan program that is self paying at graduation. It effectively makes the grants only applicable if you study a needed area, and graduate.

The same program would/should work for that woman you know, if the degree she was getting was something in the valuable category
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Its simple companies can compete for to sign or draft top students in the nation. Kind of like athletes but this is far more important.
Many companies will only cover a certain percentage of your tuition, or offer bonuses upon hiring you. That still does not come close to helping students pay off their debt faster and ultimately become more proactive as consumers.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
You remove the pell grant system as it is, and use that funding (or more if necessary) to pay those loans off on graduation. I'm not sure what you mean as a how, this would be a specialized student loan program that is self paying at graduation. It effectively makes the grants only applicable if you study a needed area, and graduate.

The same program would/should work for that woman you know, if the degree she was getting was something in the valuable category
Those are two different concepts, grants vs loans. What if your parents can't afford to co-sign for the loan? Pell Grants are designed to ease that burden.Colleges are setup to receive payment right away, not AFTER you graduate. The loans/grants cover immediate payment to the institution.In principle it sounds a like a good idea, in practical terms not so sure. In terms of what is viewed as a valuable degree, that is relative to financial compensation. She essentially doubled her salary, in addition to year end bonuses. Now she spends more which ultimately benefits businesses and the economy.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Many companies will only cover a certain percentage of your tuition, or offer bonuses upon hiring you. That still does not come close to helping students pay off their debt faster and ultimately become more proactive as consumers.
Well that's what the job is for, you work and pay off your own loan. The job doesn't have to do anything other than send you a check that you earned.

why should anyone help pay for someone's own personal decisions?
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Those are two different concepts, grants vs loans. What if your parents can't afford to co-sign for the loan? Pell Grants are designed to ease that burden.Colleges are setup to receive payment right away, not AFTER you graduate. The loans/grants cover immediate payment to the institution.In principle it sounds a like a good idea, in practical terms not so sure. In terms of what is viewed as a valuable degree, that is relative to financial compensation. She essentially doubled her salary, in addition to year end bonuses. Now she spends more which ultimately benefits businesses and the economy.
I feel like you are disagreeing just to disagree. There isn't any reason a parent needs to cosign on a loan from the federal government. There isn't a reason we should offer grants (ie spend other taxpayer's money) for degrees that are not useful to the economy. That is not spending tax dollars for "the common good". Lets say you qualify for the max pell grant amount, $5500. you sign a federal loan for $5500, that is paid for at the time of your graduation by the $5500 pell grant so long as your degree is in areas valuable to growing our economy. No interest accrues inbetween you starting college and you either graduating or going below half time. Its not really that complex. But it changes from giving free money so someone can study basketweaving, or go two years then drop out because they don't get to only truly subsidizing useful education.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
So this carbon tax malarchy. This impacts all O&G companies?

Or everyone?

I am fecked either way. My consulting is all around utilities!
It will effect every one in one way or another.

It's also about moving to a one world government. Al Gore himself stated climate change needs to be run by a global government.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Well that's what the job is for, you work and pay off your own loan. The job doesn't have to do anything other than send you a check that you earned.

why should anyone help pay for someone's own personal decisions?
That's not my point, I was referring to the importance of Pell Grants.You were the one who brought up the idea of companies paying off loans for employees upon graduation, based on talent. So you based on your own example, you could ask yourself the same question.

I believe EVERYONE is entitled to the best education possible, provided they are accepted into a given institution based on whatever criteria that institution has laid out for admittance, academic or otherwise. That is far different than comparing it to the crash of the housing market, where I agree certain loans should have never been provided in the first place to people who couldn't afford it. Now if you provide people who are "capable" based solely on the criteria of whatever institution they apply to (in other words not everyone), with easier access to an education, now you lift those people out of the bracket they are in, from where they should have never been qualified for a mortgage in the first place, to now effectively giving them the ability to compete for higher compensation employment, it's transitional and it works. That's a plan, as evidenced by my earlier example of a friend effectively doubling her salary and becoming a paralegal thanks to an education, courtesy of Pell Grants. And now she's a homeowner. That system works. She spends more now, than she did before which benefits business.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
That's not my point, I was referring to the importance of Pell Grants.You were the one who brought up the idea of companies paying off loans for employees upon graduation, based on talent. So you based on your own example, you could ask yourself the same question.

I believe EVERYONE is entitled to the best education possible, provided they are accepted into a given institution based on whatever criteria that institution has laid out for admittance, academic or otherwise. That is far different than comparing it to the crash of the housing market, where I agree certain loans should have never been provided in the first place to people who couldn't afford it. Now if you provide people who are "capable" based solely on the criteria of whatever institution they apply to (in other words not everyone), with easier access to an education, now you lift those people out of the bracket they are in, from where they should have never been qualified for a mortgage in the first place, to now effectively giving them the ability to compete for higher compensation employment, it's transitional and it works. That's a plan, as evidenced by my earlier example of a friend effectively doubling her salary and becoming a paralegal thanks to an education, courtesy of Pell Grants. And now she's a homeowner. That system works. She spends more now, than she did before which benefits business.
No, you allow companies to bid or draft on top students. They don't have to its just there only if they see value in students involved with the draft.

Everybody should be entitled to their own freedom. If a charity want to pay for someone's education or a company chooses to invest that's thei choice, but robbing of people's labor and income so others can get free things is morally wrong.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Now if you provide people who are "capable" based solely on the criteria of whatever institution they apply to (in other words not everyone), with easier access to an education, now you lift those people out of the bracket they are in, from where they should have never been qualified for a mortgage in the first place, to now effectively giving them the ability to compete for higher compensation employment, it's transitional and it works. That's a plan, as evidenced by my earlier example of a friend effectively doubling her salary and becoming a paralegal thanks to an education, courtesy of Pell Grants. And now she's a homeowner. That system works. She spends more now, than she did before which benefits business.
no, again, you selecting a single example and saying "it works" is contrary to the reality that more than 2/3 of the pell grants are going to students who never complete college, or get degrees in liberal arts things that have no fiscal value to the economy. You want to get a degree in classical violin? God bless you, enjoy, and pay for it yourself. If you want a degree in nursing, chemical engineering, etc it makes sense for the government to help you acheive that.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I feel like you are disagreeing just to disagree. There isn't any reason a parent needs to cosign on a loan from the federal government. There isn't a reason we should offer grants (ie spend other taxpayer's money) for degrees that are not useful to the economy. That is not spending tax dollars for "the common good". Lets say you qualify for the max pell grant amount, $5500. you sign a federal loan for $5500, that is paid for at the time of your graduation by the $5500 pell grant so long as your degree is in areas valuable to growing our economy. No interest accrues inbetween you starting college and you either graduating or going below half time. Its not really that complex. But it changes from giving free money so someone can study basketweaving, or go two years then drop out because they don't get to only truly subsidizing useful education.
If you read my earlier posts, then you'd realize I agree with the contention that liberal arts majors should not receive these benefits. I specifically highlighted areas like law, technology/engineering, accounting, finance, medicine etc. I've stated that numerous times. If you go to college to major in sociology, then you should plan on working the rest of your life at Kinko's as shift manager of the printer section. And there are many cases where parents cannot afford to send their kids to college, or even qualify for a loan. I've seen this firsthand. Now you have a bright 18 year old kid, who forfeits much of his/her future because he/she can't afford to pay for school, especially when these kids qualify at one school or another in those areas that I specified. What do you do with these kids? Continue the cycle? It is vitally important to foster those types of education, as they graduate, go out and compete for skilled labor and ultimately end up making higher than average compensation, it allows credit to go where it needs to go, homes, businesses etc. That benefits everyone.

Do you know how much the average cost of those specialized degrees area? They are in excess at top tier schools ranging anywhere between 50-60k on average, and in some school even more than that. I'm not referring to community colleges or online universities. I'm referring to schools, where these kids gain admittance based on academics. I know of hundreds of kids who have used grants to pay for school, and couldn't qualify for loans because of credit history. What do you do with those kids? What do you say to them? Not invest in their academic talent? Continue the economic cycle for them that is so hard to break out of? I went to school with a kid who grew up without a father, he's now a doctor, thanks to the help he's received from numerous people, including coming from tax dollars. I'd say that's a worthy investment.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
If people want to get an education they can go to the library and pick up a book.There are plenty of jobs in our system that don't require higher education.Anyone can start their own business. it's easy if you intelligent enough.Dont mean to show off but I started my own business when I was down to a 5lb protein container of change, and my college education has nothing to do with what I do.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'll go ahead and give the example of one of the occupy protestors, who went through 8 years of college on a combination of grants and student loans, who was there protesting for student loan forgiveness since he couldn't find a job. His degrees? the bachelors was in classical literature, and the masters was in something more or less equivalent to spiritual and paranormal literature of the 18th + 19th century.

Seriously? Like he should have gotten the grants in the first place, but now he wants the rest of the taxpayers to pay for his dumb choice in majors?
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
No, you allow companies to bid or draft on top students. They don't have to its just there only if they see value in students involved with the draft.

Everybody should be entitled to their own freedom. If a charity want to pay for someone's education or a company chooses to invest that's thei choice, but robbing of people's labor and income so others can get free things is morally wrong.
Then we'll continue to fall behind in education and wasted talent. Talent is great, but it must be fostered and invested in. I don't mind my tax dollars going towards fostering that talent. (again in the areas that I specified above, so no one brings up liberal arts degrees)
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Then we'll continue to fall behind in education and wasted talent. Talent is great, but it must be fostered and invested in. I don't mind my tax dollars going towards fostering that talent. (again in the areas that I specified above, so no one brings up liberal arts degrees)
Well you can donate or start a charity today if you want (unless you have already.)
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
If you read my earlier posts, then you'd realize I agree with the contention that liberal arts majors should not receive these benefits. I specifically highlighted areas like law, technology/engineering, accounting, finance, medicine etc. I've stated that numerous times. If you go to college to major in sociology, then you should plan on working the rest of your life at Kinko's as shift manager of the printer section. And there are many cases where parents cannot afford to send their kids to college, or even qualify for a loan. I've seen this firsthand. Now you have a bright 18 year old kid, who forfeits much of his/her future because he/she can't afford to pay for school, especially when these kids qualify at one school or another in those areas that I specified. What do you do with these kids? Continue the cycle? It is vitally important to foster those types of education, as they graduate, go out and compete for skilled labor and ultimately end up making higher than average compensation, it allows credit to go where it needs to go, homes, businesses etc. That benefits everyone.

Do you know how much the average cost of those specialized degrees area? They are in excess at top tier schools ranging anywhere between 50-60k on average, and in some school even more than that. I'm not referring to community colleges or online universities. I'm referring to schools, where these kids gain admittance based on academics. I know of hundreds of kids who have used grants to pay for school, and couldn't qualify for loans because of credit history. What do you do with those kids? What do you say to them? Not invest in their academic talent? Continue the economic cycle for them that is so hard to break out of? I went to school with a kid who grew up without a father, he's now a doctor, thanks to the help he's received from numerous people, including coming from tax dollars. I'd say that's a worthy investment.
If their parents can't afford to pay for school, then they should be able to get loans. Thats the way it works you know, the loans from the federal government are based on income. As are grants. Just the dollars need to be targeted dollars, not a giveaway to anyone.

you are estimating at the low end for the degree cost honestly. Most good colleges are breaking well over the $500 per credit hour now, and that doesn't count the costs of books, etc.

Please, give me some details on the "hundreds of kids" whose credit history was so bad by the time they were 18 that they couldn't qualify for federally guaranteed student loans. From all I understood, the federal loans didn't even take credit into account.

The kid without a father probably well fell into the family income requirements to receive those benefits, and degrees in that fields are ones our government should support, so the tax dollars are worth it there, for sure.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'll go ahead and give the example of one of the occupy protestors, who went through 8 years of college on a combination of grants and student loans, who was there protesting for student loan forgiveness since he couldn't find a job. His degrees? the bachelors was in classical literature, and the masters was in something more or less equivalent to spiritual and paranormal literature of the 18th + 19th century.Seriously? Like he should have gotten the grants in the first place, but now he wants the rest of the taxpayers to pay for his dumb choice in majors?
He can join the service and earn our tax dollars instead of stealing it.
 
Invycktus

Invycktus

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
What does everyone here think about centralizing airlines?

I always thought the Fed Govt needs to ground the pricing scheme on the airlines.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
What does everyone here think about centralizing airlines?I always thought the Fed Govt needs to ground the pricing scheme on the airlines.
Like medicine, the price will sky rocket. Plus taxes have to go up screwing people who choose not to fly.
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
As for healthcare, years ago, I was denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition. You know what the pre-existing condition was? High cholesterol. Since my body naturally produces higher amounts of cholesterol (rolled snake eyes on genetics), it meant that when shopping around for insurance policies, it would cost me as much as a small mortgage payment, because cholesterol is viewed as high risk for other health issues. That is unrealistic, in one of the ONLY industries that has experienced growth despite an economic downturn, do I feel sorry for insurance companies now having to absorb higher costs? Hell no. My premiums are lower today, than they've ever been....EVER BEEN. When an insurance company now has to worry to about competing with lower cost alternative plan subsidized by the government or not, we all win. They can either keep their premiums high, or forced to lower them by competing for business, and that is a good thing for consumers.
I will leave the pissing match to the rest of you all.

But this piece on health care is a bit too optimistic. My premiums have already gone up to compensate for Obamacare. Papa Johns has raised their prices to compensate for Obamacare. The cost reaches out more than just healthcare.

I am a bit questionable on the part of saving money. Considering the cost of obamacare sits at 1.93 trillion (2.5 if you count the raping of medicare) over the first 10 years... of which money is being paid into by medicare and insurance companies, yet no benefits are being reaped till 2014). What happens after that first 10 years?

CBO has stated out right that obamacare will raise health insurance premiums, overall health costs, taxes on Americans and business, and siphon off a rising number of nearly 1T of medicare (2014 - 2023)... all while paying out lower rates to doctors for care, even lower than the brutal medicaid program (Where is the incentive to enter the medical industry?)

The numbers sold to the public to pass on public opinion are no where near what the real numbers are going to be as per the CBO... it approaches double. There is only cost in this, no savings. Premiums on small businesses for health insurance are already rising, of which will cause them to quit giving their own insurance and move their employees to the government dole.

Unfortunately I have been on Gov. run healthcare in the Military, and know that the Emergency room is your doctor. Asking for an appointment takes weeks. Right now if my kid is sick, I can call the pediatrician and get in within a couple hours, of which will not be the case after full implementation.

Maybe it is the libertarian coming out in me, but I cannot see how anyone is okay with such a radical expansion of government and debt.

We have accrued over 6T in debt over 3.75 years... when do we stop? The projected 2016 is over 22T!!!

http://www.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Wait until they start addressing costs.

Like Bloomburgh in NYC stated in order to address obesity costs we must ban large sodas and popcorn at movie theaters.

Our freedoms will continue to be stripped for the benefit of the commune.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
If people want to get an education they can go to the library and pick up a book.There are plenty of jobs in our system that don't require higher education.Anyone can start their own business. it's easy if you intelligent enough.Dont mean to show off but I started my own business when I was down to a 5lb protein container of change, and my college education has nothing to do with what I do.
Great for you, but for every business that is created, there are 10 others that fail. Not everyone is equipped to run or manage a business. Investing in skilled employment through education leads to better pay, leads to more spending and ultimately benefits everyone. It's a difference in approach and philosophy as to how you grow the economy. You can say the supply side model should work in theory, less regulation, businesses keep more money in-house and reinvesting in their companies. If a company is publicly traded, they have a responsibility to shareholders, public investors to grow that business. But is that actually what they do? What was rate of growth on salaries during the periods when the supply-side model was in place? What were the rates of growth on investment returns? I'll tell you, they were poor. Management of these companies fared very well, however, their employees? Not so much. Everyone thinks they have the right idea to get the economy moving. Flat taxes, cutting spending (which needs to be done, but in reasonable fashion over a prolonged period of time). But they refuse to engage you in a an honest and open policy discussion. How deep are these cuts? And to what programs? What tax deductions do you want to see stripped? Mortgage deduction? See the devil is in the details, it's easy to say, cut, cut, cut, lower taxes, or take a balanced approached, with measured cuts over a set period of time, while still reinvesting in education, that leads to better jobs and more consumer spending.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
You can't save everyone southpaw. It's impossible with human nature.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Great for you, but for every business that is created, there are 10 others that fail. Not everyone is equipped to run or manage a business. Investing in skilled employment through education leads to better pay, leads to more spending and ultimately benefits everyone. It's a difference in approach and philosophy as to how you grow the economy. You can say the supply side model should work in theory, less regulation, businesses keep more money in-house and reinvesting in their companies. If a company is publicly traded, they have a responsibility to shareholders, public investors to grow that business. But is that actually what they do? What was rate of growth on salaries during the periods when the supply-side model was in place? What were the rates of growth on investment returns? I'll tell you, they were poor. Management of these companies fared very well, however, their employees? Not so much. Everyone thinks they have the right idea to get the economy moving. Flat taxes, cutting spending (which needs to be done, but in reasonable fashion over a prolonged period of time). But they refuse to engage you in a an honest and open policy discussion. How deep are these cuts? And to what programs? What tax deductions do you want to see stripped? Mortgage deduction? See the devil is in the details, it's easy to say, cut, cut, cut, lower taxes, or take a balanced approached, with measured cuts over a set period of time, while still reinvesting in education, that leads to better jobs and more consumer spending.
the prolonged period of time can't be much longer than 8 years at the current point we are at fiscally and debt wise. As I showed with the numbers from the budgets and spending of the federal government, if we haven't stopped the rising debt within that time, we'll be hitting the "unsustainable debt" levels. The budgets put forth by either Romney or Obama didn't get anywhere close to that. So be ready for some pretty horrible crap to begin happening starting sometime around 2022-2025.
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Great for you, but for every business that is created, there are 10 others that fail. Not everyone is equipped to run or manage a business. Investing in skilled employment through education leads to better pay, leads to more spending and ultimately benefits everyone. It's a difference in approach and philosophy as to how you grow the economy. You can say the supply side model should work in theory, less regulation, businesses keep more money in-house and reinvesting in their companies. If a company is publicly traded, they have a responsibility to shareholders, public investors to grow that business. But is that actually what they do? What was rate of growth on salaries during the periods when the supply-side model was in place? What were the rates of growth on investment returns? I'll tell you, they were poor. Management of these companies fared very well, however, their employees? Not so much. Everyone thinks they have the right idea to get the economy moving. Flat taxes, cutting spending (which needs to be done, but in reasonable fashion over a prolonged period of time). But they refuse to engage you in a an honest and open policy discussion. How deep are these cuts? And to what programs? What tax deductions do you want to see stripped? Mortgage deduction? See the devil is in the details, it's easy to say, cut, cut, cut, lower taxes, or take a balanced approached, with measured cuts over a set period of time, while still reinvesting in education, that leads to better jobs and more consumer spending.
This is the problem with our flawed tax code. The mortgage deduction shouldn't exist at all. Can't afford a mortgage taxes? Rent. In fact, where shouldn't be one deduction available at all.

Want to save? Can chop about 30 "Departments" out of the Gov. Dept. of Edu is completely unconstitutional, and the DHS? Come on now. We already had that, it is called the military. "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" That was the first line of the oath I took to get in. At least the Constitution lends the power of protection to setup the criminal DHS.

The federal Gov. has expanded well beyond its enumerated powers in the Constitution that set it up. Little by little America has been complacent and allowing their freedoms to be taken in the name of security, or because the idea of Uncle Sam's new cradle to grave campaign.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
the prolonged period of time can't be much longer than 8 years at the current point we are at fiscally and debt wise. As I showed with the numbers from the budgets and spending of the federal government, if we haven't stopped the rising debt within that time, we'll be hitting the "unsustainable debt" levels. The budgets put forth by either Romney or Obama didn't get anywhere close to that. So be ready for some pretty horrible crap to begin happening starting sometime around 2022-2025.
The hole is being dug so deep and the Fed keeps inflating the dollar.The fact is if we don't cut spending drastically now, by nature it will cut it for us.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
the prolonged period of time can't be much longer than 8 years at the current point we are at fiscally and debt wise. As I showed with the numbers from the budgets and spending of the federal government, if we haven't stopped the rising debt within that time, we'll be hitting the "unsustainable debt" levels. The budgets put forth by either Romney or Obama didn't get anywhere close to that. So be ready for some pretty horrible crap to begin happening starting sometime around 2022-2025.
8-10 to years is a reasonable approach. They need to compromise on a budget. Not one side saying cut EVERYTHING with expediency. And not the without the other side addressing spending. Three issues need to be incorporated into a bill that sets a period of time 8-10 years (economists have backed such plans), where cuts are made (within reason), spending is curtailed (budget) and revenue growth. All three must be addressed and in reasonable fashion. Now you can debate the plans that are floating out there, but cut, cut, cut, lower taxes shouldn't be the line in the sand. If every budget you present has tax cuts in it for the top earners, and you draw a line in the sand refusing to step away from that position, then the issue becomes inflexible. I agree cuts must be made, but done so in reasonable fashion, not slash and burn.

And while there are federal loans available for kids/families with poor credit, the amount of the loan is heavily dependent on the institution. It will NOT cover the entire amount, which is why kids subsidize their tuition payments with monies received from Pell Grants. It's the difference between talent being able to go to a top tier school vs a school that isn't focused on those areas of expertise. Investing in academic talent is key to competing in a global economy. The world is changing, education must evolve with it in order to be able to effectively compete.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
How do you cut the budget within reason with an unreasonable deficit?

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama launched wwiii.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
How do you cut the budget within reason with an unreasonable deficit?

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama launched wwiii.
He's launching the death star, it's aimed at your bedroom window. Take cover behind the Tom Brady poster.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
He's launching the death star, it's aimed at your bedroom window. Take cover behind the Tom Brady poster.
It worked the last ww. When countries are on the brink of collapse all desperate measures are on the table, and war works.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
This is the problem with our flawed tax code. The mortgage deduction shouldn't exist at all. Can't afford a mortgage taxes? Rent. In fact, where shouldn't be one deduction available at all.

Want to save? Can chop about 30 "Departments" out of the Gov. Dept. of Edu is completely unconstitutional, and the DHS? Come on now. We already had that, it is called the military. "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" That was the first line of the oath I took to get in. At least the Constitution lends the power of protection to setup the criminal DHS.

The federal Gov. has expanded well beyond its enumerated powers in the Constitution that set it up. Little by little America has been complacent and allowing their freedoms to be taken in the name of security, or because the idea of Uncle Sam's new cradle to grave campaign.
What about for people who have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for employment, but no one is hiring. Should the deductions be stripped away for them too? What about tax incentives for companies that open businesses in a given state, then turn around and outsource labor. Should those tax incentives remain in place? Or is that just considered "good" business?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
What about for people who have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for employment, but no one is hiring. Should the deductions be stripped away for them too? What about tax incentives for companies to open businesses in a given state, then turn around and outsource labor. Should those tax incentives remain in place? Or is that just considered "good" business?
Yes. There is nothing you can do.

A good in incentive for companies is when government starts leaving them alone. As you can see government has chased our companies to other countries.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Yes. There is nothing you can do.

A good in incentive for companies is when government starts leaving them alone. As you can see government has chased our companies to other countries.
Lol. Government has chased out companies to other countries? Really? We don't manufacture anything! AT&T has been outsourcing jobs for YEARS, while still receiving tax benefits. Why should employees lose their jobs and their benefits as well, simply because they aren't a corporation. That's ridiculous. At our compliance firm, we could have chosen to outsource the IT/data systems to another country(it is far cheaper), but we chose to hire an IT graduate here, while offering him a competitive salary. The reasons these companies outsource jobs in the first place, is based on one reason and one reason only...cheap labor. That's where it begins and that is where it ends.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Lol. Government has chased out companies to other countries? Really? We don't manufacture anything! AT&T has been outsourcing jobs for YEARS, while still receiving tax benefits. Why should employees lose their jobs and their benefits as well, simply because they aren't a corporation. That's ridiculous. At our compliance firm, we could have chosen to outsource the IT/data systems to another country(it is far cheaper), but we chose to hire an IT graduate here, while offering him a competitive salary. The reasons these companies outsource jobs in the first place, is based on one reason and one reason only...cheap labor. That's where it begins and that is where it ends.
Well, of course you can pick an example of a flourishing business in this country. Apple is flourishing, and although the iphones are designed in California, they are made in China.

There shouldnt be tax benefits, there should be no tax.

If an employee loses their job their benefits go bye bye. Who is going to pay for it? Its unfortunate but there is nothing you can do.

Its not just cheap labor, its also taxes and regulation. Throw in mandate benefits such as Obama care business are losing their incentives to keep full time employees. Its a bit more complicated than just picking on cheap labor.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
How do people believe this climate change ****.
There was a point not long ago where it was all about global freezing....not long ago they changed it from global warming to "climate change" after the science lab leaks showing it was a ponzie scheme.

Anyways the whole scheme is not whether or not climate changes, but the cause. Climate changes, but this whole focus on carbon and regulating humans doesnt solve anything it only suppresses people without really even addressing the lie.

Maurice Strom (caught in the UN oil for food scandal) is the godfather of the climate change ponzi scheme, he is living in Beijing right now (he is wanted by several countries) coaching the Chinese Government how to profit of climate change.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Well, of course you can pick an example of a flourishing business in this country. Apple is flourishing, and although the iphones are designed in California, they are made in China.

There shouldnt be tax benefits, there should be no tax.

If an employee loses their job their benefits go bye bye. Who is going to pay for it? Its unfortunate but there is nothing you can do.

Its not just cheap labor, its also taxes and regulation. Throw in mandate benefits such as Obama care business are losing their incentives to keep full time employees. Its a bit more complicated than just picking on cheap labor.
So company due to mismanagement, lays off thousands of workers, no severance payments with many losing their pensions in the process. Now they are forced to look for work, but no one is hiring, eventually they are unable to keep up with their mortgage payments and end up losing their homes. What do you say to these people? Sorry...you played by the rules but you're on your own. Meanwhile the company can sell off its debt and restructure, once again receiving benefits, while management walks away with massive bonuses. That's your idea of a plan? That's fair? Or are you simply marrying yourself to a philosophy, an ideal and opting to remain inflexible?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
If the government trys to fix anything the price sky rockets
Exactly. There was a day not long ago that if you needed medical treatment you can go to some small Church Hospital/Office and if you had no money they would just help you, or you gave what you can. After government meddles with health care costs skyrocketed and all these places went out of business.

Now that dictator Obama's solution is that if your poor and cant afford health insurance you are forced to pay health insurance or get fined a hefty price tag.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
So company due to mismanagement, lays off thousands of workers, no severance payments with many losing their pensions in the process. Now they are forced to look for work, but no one is hiring, eventually they are unable to keep up with their mortgage payments and end up losing their homes. What do you say to these people? Sorry...you played by the rules but you're on your own. Meanwhile the company can sell off its debt and restructure, once again receiving benefits, while management walks away with massive bonuses. That's your idea of a plan? That's fair? Or are you simply marrying yourself to a philosophy, an ideal and opting to remain inflexible?
You have to learn self dependence and reliance. People should be smart enough to know this can happen to them at any time and should be prepared for it. Permanent dependence on a job to support you and take care of you the rest of your life can be a tragic mistake. After all your just statistic to them.

As far as mortgage payments...well they will just have to downsize, having a house is something you earn and not a right. Its not the fault of others that one didnt plan their life out right and spent money before they earned it.

What you tell these people is that they have to suck it up.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Yea. The dictator claims that obamacare will lower cost. We all know how that not possible. How can they even say that. Technically they could set a price ceiling, but that would destroy private insurance companies
All these Obamanoids I talk to in person supporting the mandate and that it will only help lower the premium...when I ask how much will it cost they never, never ever have an answer.
 
Invycktus

Invycktus

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Like medicine, the price will sky rocket. Plus taxes have to go up screwing people who choose not to fly.
I really hope we can agencies like Delta. That place reeks of corruption.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
You have to learn self dependence and reliance. People should be smart enough to know this can happen to them at any time and should be prepared for it. Permanent dependence on a job to support you and take care of you the rest of your life can be a tragic mistake. After all your just statistic to them.

As far as mortgage payments...well they will just have to downsize, having a house is something you earn and not a right. Its not the fault of others that one didnt plan their life out right and spent money before they earned it.

What you tell these people is that they have to suck it up.
Yes, you should be self reliant, which also means remaining "adaptable" to the environment. Not blaming the government for all of your troubles. Ya know...SUCK IT UP. Create your own opportunities, see my other examples of people creating businesses harvested from good ideas.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
All these Obamanoids I talk to in person supporting the mandate and that it will only help lower the premium...when I ask how much will it cost they never, never ever have an answer.
And all those who oppose it are equally unmatched in facts. There are numerous studies the convey quite the opposite of what is being posted here, saying that when it kicks in fully, it will drive down premiums for most.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Yes, you should be self reliant, which also means remaining "adaptable" to the environment. Not blaming the government for all of your troubles. Ya know...SUCK IT UP. Create your own opportunities, see my other examples of people creating businesses harvested from good ideas.
If people get screwed illegally at a corporation then they should get together and sue, but Goverment can pay people's morgages and benefits.

Suck it up as in, its not so bad to lose your home. Life goes on look forward. At least you dont have bombs from Obama drones falling on your house killing your baby.
 
Invycktus

Invycktus

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
If the government trys to fix anything the price sky rockets
A 1 stop flight from Memphis to Philadelphia costs 895 RT on DAL

Costs 345-500 on US Air

If MEM fliers do not take DL, DL cuts services, cans local airlines, MEM unemployed numbers go up. Pinnacle Airlines is just one example of this.

US Air basically out of MEM right now is filled with folks pissed off on DL.

My status on both is Platinum so I do not care about service as such, but this is a game that DL started in Memphis, moved to Cinci, and also into Columbia, MO

I really really hope some s*it hits them once. FFS, I own their stock, but they deserve it.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
And all those who oppose it are equally unmatched in facts. There are numerous studies the ones posted here, saying that when it kicks in fully, it will drive down premiums.
Here is this for a study...if it was sooo good why do you have to force people to buy it?

Who published these numerous studies? Those lobbied by the insurance businesses who wrote the bill?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I really really hope some s*it hits them once. FFS, I own their stock, but they deserve it.
They will only be awarded with free Obamamoney for failure.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
And all those who oppose it are equally unmatched in facts. There are numerous studies the convey quite the opposite of what is being posted here, saying that when it kicks in fully, it will drive down premiums for most.
Also drive down by how much? For how long? How does it correlate to inflation?

What happens when things cost more than they are initially reported as usually is the case?
 

Similar threads


Top