Hilary Clinton's gives speech with plans for Americans Hoping to go to College
51 replies, posted
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;48513615][B]I don't understand why the national debt is an issue.[/B] A conservative government is an ineffective government.[/QUOTE]
what kind of an argument is this? the national debt is an issue if you worry about future generations, and this does not make conservative government ineffective. I think what you said is absolute nonsense
[editline]22nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48514038]They don't represent small government, they just have different ideas of where government should be. Instead of regulating corporations and schools, they focus on regulating drugs and gays.[/QUOTE]
hey, to each their own. I disagree with the regulation of corporations unless it has to do with consumers rights (ie big mergers creating monopolies and corporations jacking up prices for utilities because they are the sole proprietor). Sure drugs should be regulated, but the old klondikes in congress can fuck right off with their legislation against gays and abortion.
I was taught that the republican idea was freedom for the people (directly related to small government) so it boggles my mind that most of the candidates ideas impose restrictions against gay marriage and abortion.
Corporations should be able to keep their profits because they earned it. I won't pay the government to do things that I don't agree with. Not everyone is irresponsible with their money to the extent that the government has to take it and spend it on what they think is right.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48512252]I'll believe if when I see it. Clearly she can't be trusted given her current email scandal.[/QUOTE]
give her [B]current[/B] email scandal?
this psychopath has a dodgy as fuck history stretching as far back as her days in legal.
I don't know how anyone in their right mind can think Hillary is a good candidate for POTUS.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48513326][URL]http://www.sanders.senate.gov/top10[/URL]
Seems like he does.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Stop corporations from using offshore tax havens to avoid U.S. taxes. [/QUOTE]
Stop tightening regulations and letting unions run wild with demands and maybe companies would come back to America.
[QUOTE]Establish a Robin Hood tax on Wall Street speculators. [/QUOTE]
Oh gee, if the amount is SO small then why would this somehow stop reckless "gambling" on Wall Street?
[QUOTE]End tax breaks and subsidies for big oil, gas and coal companies. [/QUOTE]
And then they cut costs/jobs to keep investors happy, good one.
[QUOTE]Establish a Progressive Estate Tax. [/QUOTE]
Because you as a citizen don't deserve to pass anything on to your children. LOL
[QUOTE]Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work.[/QUOTE]
LOL, okay take this as an example. You earn $100k from your job. You get taxed 30% of that. You have 70k. You invest that in the stock market. You make money, you get taxed another 30% of that money that you RISKED investing. That makes a whole lot of fucking sense. Why should you get taxed AGAIN the same amount? This is absolutely ridiculous and anti-freemarket, which isn't surprising with half the bullshit he thinks he can implement.
Too tired to go through the rest of the list, only one that I agree with is #9. The only other thing I agree with him is not having the government bail out private companies, but then he says ONLY private companies, public companies SHOULD be bailed out he thinks. Which is incredibly hypocritical. Anyways most people my age only hear "free college" and think he's god's gift to earth so whatever.
EDIT: Also anyone can make a list and have the top most educated people estimate how much it would save/cost etc, but let's not forget these are ESTIMATES.
-sniip-
[QUOTE=RocketSnail;48514494]the national debt is an issue if you worry about future generations[/QUOTE]
So is the environment, but I don't see many corporations or politicians going out of their way to protect it, dispute scientists screaming at the top of their lungs that we've already surpassed the point of irreparable damage. Some do, but the efforts are minimal at best.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48512629]There are more issues than college debt. Honestly many of them are more important. Don't vote for someone because they promise shit like this...when they do shit like Hilary does.[/QUOTE]
Yes but College is my most interested issue.
I'm a 21 year old male that currently has trouble finding a job because alot of them require a years worth of experience I can't grab.
So yeah, I'm sorry Bernie, even if you're the best choice, I still doubt he'd win, and I don't have alot of confidence of how he'll stand on the World stage.
[QUOTE=X12321;48514753]Stop tightening regulations and letting unions run wild with demands and maybe companies would come back to America. [/QUOTE]
How exactly do you compete with developing countries in manufactoring?
Snip
How is this compatible with the billionaires that funded her campaign that profit off college education?
[QUOTE=Velocet;48515147]How is this compatible with the billionaires that funded her campaign that profit off college education?[/QUOTE]
Because if you read the snippet of the article in the OP, even the first few paragraphs, you'd see that the tuition assistance is only provided to those who enrol for three years in the AmeriCorps program. And enrolment for AmeriCorps will only be budgeted to go up to 250,000 members.
[QUOTE=X12321;48514753]Stop tightening regulations and letting unions run wild with demands and maybe companies would come back to America. [/QUOTE]
Haha, what? Unions have nearly been abolished in America, they hold no power anymore except for already powerful occupations. If you're a fast food worker then you are often not allowed to unionized.
[QUOTE=X12321;48514753]Oh gee, if the amount is SO small then why would this somehow stop reckless "gambling" on Wall Street? [/QUOTE]
Presumably by preventing them from derivative trading and loan sharking?
[QUOTE=X12321;48514753]And then they cut costs/jobs to keep investors happy, good one.[/QUOTE]
Gas/Oil/Coal companies are among the most profitable [B]in the world[/B]. Why do the most profitable companies in the world pay a negative tax?
[QUOTE=X12321;48514753]Because you as a citizen don't deserve to pass anything on to your children. LOL[/QUOTE]
It's not [B]everything[/B], but it's to make sure you don't end up with a family hoarding money for generations. Most of the wealthiest people on the world just sit on their money like scrooge mc duck.
[QUOTE=X12321;48514753]LOL, okay take this as an example. You earn $100k from your job. You get taxed 30% of that. You have 70k. You invest that in the stock market. You make money, you get taxed another 30% of that money that you RISKED investing. That makes a whole lot of fucking sense. Why should you get taxed AGAIN the same amount? This is absolutely ridiculous and anti-freemarket, which isn't surprising with half the bullshit he thinks he can implement.[/QUOTE]
You're taxed for gambling, so why wouldn't you be taxed for other speculative investments? Hah, also worth noting that there is no such thing as a free market so long as the government is handing out subsidies and regulating the industry. Thing is that big businesses [B]hate[/B] the free market, which is why they often try to stifle the innovation of others (See copyright law and it's frequent misuses). Just look at Big Pharma if you need an obvious example. Heck, just look at the [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1482161"]Xerox printers thread[/URL] or just look up that company that put DRM on their coffee filters.
[QUOTE=X12321;48514753]Too tired to go through the rest of the list, only one that I agree with is #9. The only other thing I agree with him is not having the government bail out private companies, but then he says ONLY private companies, public companies SHOULD be bailed out he thinks. Which is incredibly hypocritical. Anyways most people my age only hear "free college" and think he's god's gift to earth so whatever.[/quote]
Because public companies are owned by the government? So the government paying it's own debt makes sense, right?
[QUOTE=X12321;48514753]EDIT: Also anyone can make a list and have the top most educated people estimate how much it would save/cost etc, but let's not forget these are ESTIMATES.[/quote]
Because estimations have absolutely no baring or correlation on reality right? I mean you can just make up any old number and they have an equally likelihood of occurring as a number generated using past trends and simulation.
[QUOTE=Reshy;48515276]It's not [B]everything[/B], but it's to make sure you don't end up with a family hoarding money for generations. Most of the wealthiest people on the world just sit on their money like scrooge mc duck.[/QUOTE]
Would hurt middle class families more than anyone else.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48515244]Because if you read the snippet of the article in the OP, even the first few paragraphs, you'd see that the tuition assistance is only provided to those who enrol for three years in the AmeriCorps program. And enrolment for AmeriCorps will only be budgeted to go up to 250,000 members.[/QUOTE]
That cuts into their bottom line.
[QUOTE]Because public companies are owned by the government? So the government paying it's own debt makes sense, right? [/QUOTE]
What do you mean? Public companies are publicly traded on a stock exchange. They're owned by share holders. If I buy one share of Exxon, I'm owner of a very very very small part of Exxon. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you.
[QUOTE=Reshy;48515276]Haha, what? Unions have nearly been abolished in America, they hold no power anymore except for already powerful occupations. If you're a fast food worker then you are often not allowed to unionized.
Presumably by preventing them from derivative trading and loan sharking?
Gas/Oil/Coal companies are among the most profitable [B]in the world[/B]. Why do the most profitable companies in the world pay a negative tax?
It's not [B]everything[/B], but it's to make sure you don't end up with a family hoarding money for generations. Most of the wealthiest people on the world just sit on their money like scrooge mc duck.
You're taxed for gambling, so why wouldn't you be taxed for other speculative investments? Hah, also worth noting that there is no such thing as a free market so long as the government is handing out subsidies and regulating the industry. Thing is that big businesses [B]hate[/B] the free market, which is why they often try to stifle the innovation of others (See copyright law and it's frequent misuses). Just look at Big Pharma if you need an obvious example. Heck, just look at the [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1482161"]Xerox printers thread[/URL] or just look up that company that put DRM on their coffee filters.
Because public companies are owned by the government? So the government paying it's own debt makes sense, right?
Because estimations have absolutely no baring or correlation on reality right? I mean you can just make up any old number and they have an equally likelihood of occurring as a number generated using past trends and simulation.[/QUOTE]
The government already makes more money when you buy a gallon of gas than the gas company does.
If a government program is going into debt why would you keep bailing it out? Why does our tax money go to that bullshit? You act like the government has some sort of right to just keep fucking our debt more.
Why shouldn't families be allowed to hoard away money? It's their fucking right to do so.
And taxing investing higher is just going to kill innovation. Gambling is much different than investing. You don't just put a dollar in a machine and hope to win.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;48513252]Honestly, there's no way to fix that now.
The last time we paid our national debt, it was when Jackson was in office. The economy was [I]destroyed,[/I] and our debt was way smaller back then.[/QUOTE]
People don't understand how the national deficit works anyways.
We are constantly paying back the bonds and loans that landed us in debt... by taking out more bonds and loans. Therefore, unless our credit got bad and people stopped lending us money (they won't, it is far to lucrative to do so) we basically have a supply of money. I mean, there are problems with having a deficit, but to say that it is more important than college tuition is pretty dumb. The majority of countries in the world are in debt and America's debt to GDP ratio is 73%, compared to Germany at 81% or the UK at 88%. For comparison, Brazil is resting at 55% and their country has horrible living conditions for the majority of the people in it.
Debt is just another bullshit buzzword conservatives like to use to act like liberals will hurt the economy by taking YOUR money. But they aren't taking your money at all. The debt doesn't really cost anything for you as a citizen (it will if the government decided to make up the debt, because then they would have to raise taxes) but college tuition and healthcare do cost a lot for you.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48515668]Would hurt middle class families more than anyone else.[/QUOTE]
Not really, usually these plans have a base amount like anything under 250k in assets is untaxed, so you can't give your kids a million dollars untaxed but a middle class house can be given
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48513235]If Sanders can attract a significant portion of Democrats but runs as a third party while Clinton wins the Democrat nomination, that's simply going to hand the Presidency to whoever the Republican is. Because just face it, you're not going to get anywhere close to 100% of Democrat voters to abandon the Democrat candidate and vote third party. It would be a fatal split.
Let's not forget that Sanders is a fringe candidate who's only really popular on the Internet, which is dominated by people of college age who are really impressionable and get wet when they hear thing such as 'single-payer healthcare' 'tuition-free tertiary education' '90% marginal income taxes on millionaires'. As long as there are moderates in the race, a third party Sanders would only ever result in the election going to the Republicans.[/QUOTE]
Lmao you're funny.
Fringe candidate? Oh that explains why he's polling within 19 points of Hilary now, and has recently overtaken her in NH. But I guess only a guy whose real support is in the internet can only draw crowds of 28,000, twice, right?
But no man, only a fringe candidate would raise 15,000,000 in the first 2 months of campaigning from small donations, right? And that was reported on June 30th, I wouldn't be surprised if he raised 30 million by now.
Any American who is against Unions or say they have too much power, clearly lacks a moral compass and might as well say that blacks should be segregated and women shouldn't vote....
We're in the XXI century bro. How retarded -because there's no other word- do you have to be in order to NOT understand how little power workers have when compared to businessmen? Unions are the ONLY, read, the ONLY way for them to avoid getting rekted.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48517546]Any American who is against Unions or say they have too much power, clearly lacks a moral compass and might as well say that blacks should be segregated and women shouldn't vote....[/QUOTE]
No, no they shouldn't. There is a very very very big difference between being against unions and being a giant racist/sexist
[QUOTE=Liem;48517589]No, no they shouldn't. There is a very very very big difference between being against unions and being a giant racist/sexist[/QUOTE]
I think you don't understand the point. Of course there is a very big difference, but you aren't seeing the analogy.
Those ideas I cited, were left behind in the past century mostly after the first half. At the same time, all around the world, from Europe to Latin America, workers started gaining more power and reclaiming rights that were denied to them, which basically is the 90-ish% of the population denying itself rights.
Yet the US has kept the same stupid, backwards, and retrograde mentality towards unions and worker rights.
Therefore, anyone who is against Unions (And the only acceptable exception would be businessmen purely out of a economic reason), might as well be a retard who agrees with all the other ideas I've cited, because they belong to a time when people didn't give a fuck about each other, no matter if they were equal.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48517696]I think you don't understand the point. Of course there is a very big difference, but you aren't seeing the analogy.
Those ideas I cited, were left behind in the past century mostly after the first half. At the same time, all around the world, from Europe to Latin America, workers started gaining more power and reclaiming rights that were denied to them, which basically is the 90-ish% of the population denying itself rights.
Yet the US has kept the same stupid, backwards, and retrograde mentality towards unions and worker rights.
Therefore, anyone who is against Unions (And the only acceptable exception would be businessmen purely out of a economic reason), might as well be a retard who agrees with all the other ideas I've cited, because they belong to a time when people didn't give a fuck about each other, no matter if they were equal.[/QUOTE]
The US has had a different history with unions than the rest of the world, riddled with corruption and greed and such. It's not that they get power and protect the workers that's the issue, it's that they eventually get too much power.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.