Will you still go to law school if the US defaults? Forum

[Tiago Splitter]

My main concern with trying to pin it all on those two factors is that it ignores the fundamental problems that aren't going away.

I don't disagree with you; The deficit is a complex matter. But, IMO, Bush and his careless wars/policies made a bad problem even worse, much worse.

Obviously the wars were a bad idea, but immediately withdrawing does nothing for entitlements.

But enough about this overblown topic. What do you think about attending Hofstra at sticker?

[MrPapagiorgio]

My main concern with trying to pin it all on those two factors is that it ignores the fundamental problems that aren't going away.

I don't disagree with you; The deficit is a complex matter. But, IMO, Bush and his careless wars/policies made a bad problem even worse, much worse.

You're one of those "Bush spent a lot so Obama had to spend even more to fix our spending problem" people, aren't you

[deadhipsters]

My main concern with trying to pin it all on those two factors is that it ignores the fundamental problems that aren't going away.

I don't disagree with you; The deficit is a complex matter. But, IMO, Bush and his careless wars/policies made a bad problem even worse, much worse.

Obviously the wars were a bad idea, but immediately withdrawing does nothing for entitlements.

But enough about this overblown topic. What do you think about attending Hofstra at sticker?

Hofstra just opened a medical school. Solid idea.

[scammedhard]

But enough about this overblown topic. What do you think about attending Hofstra at sticker?

That's exactly what I am about to do in a few weeks... I so look forward to getting assraped. You know, somebody needs to pay for the outrageous salaries of Hofstra profs and admins, and I am willing to step up to the plate and deliver my government-sponsored student loans to this fine institution that professes six-figure salaries and 99.99% employment rate, even in the midst of the worst economic downturn since WWII.

[iowalum]

This is why it's mostly political theater.


If you take away the Bush tax cuts and the unfunded Iraq/Afghanistan wars, we'd practically have a balanced budget. It's not a major issue.

What? Are you saying that a default is not a big deal? I really hope not

We can turn the flyover states into pay-per-use chemical waste dumps.

We'll call them TTTT's.

First of all, we 'fly-over' states keep you fed so YOU'RE WELCOME.

But, agreed on the point of Bush tax cuts... additional revenue is off the table?? Come on... get over yourselves. Making the rich richer while cutting education is a good way to be on your way out of superpowerdom.

[scammedhard]

You're one of those "Bush spent a lot so Obama had to spend more than any other administration in the USA's history to fix our spending problem" people, aren't you

I guess I am not. I am not happy with Obama, and some of that is related to his failed stimulus spending. But that does not affect the blame I assign to Bush's policies.

[Nicholasnickynic]

The resulting inflation is how i plan to pay for it.

that actually just made me happy, in a really sick way.

[lawgod]

First of all, we 'fly-over' states keep you fed so YOU'RE WELCOME.

But, agreed on the point of Bush tax cuts... additional revenue is off the table?? Come on... get over yourselves. Making the rich richer while cutting education is a good way to be on your way out of superpowerdom.

Nobody makes the rich richer. The rich make themselves richer.
We can discuss where tax burdens should fall, but if you need to do it from a premise that the rich owe their success to everyone else, then you ought to question your conclusions.

[Gecko of Doom]

Yea, I foresee a 6 month deal that will allow for the R's to keep this in the media for as long as possible.

Which will allow them to continue sounding like out-of-touch, anti-pragmatic ideologues straight up to the presidential campaign. Sounds like a winner.

Thank God Democrats never resort to such tactics.

Never said they don't. I actually agree with a lot of what the Republicans stand used to stand for. But I think they're making themselves look ridiculous by catering to the Tea Party fringe, and I think it's going to hurt them in the next election.

[dabbadon8]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Debt-Dram ... 1hYmxv?x=0

Less doomsday scenario, but way more likely.

[deadhipsters]

First of all, we 'fly-over' states keep you fed so YOU'RE WELCOME.

But, agreed on the point of Bush tax cuts... additional revenue is off the table?? Come on... get over yourselves. Making the rich richer while cutting education is a good way to be on your way out of superpowerdom.

Nobody makes the rich richer. The rich make themselves richer.
We can discuss where tax burdens should fall, but if you need to do it from a premise that the rich owe their success to everyone else, then you ought to question your conclusions.

The current tax structure facilitates a system where the rich pay less than their fair share of taxes, thus keeping the rich richer. If they keep a higher percentage of their earnings while you and I keep a lower percent. I’d say that is a fair assessment.

[iowalum]

First of all, we 'fly-over' states keep you fed so YOU'RE WELCOME.

But, agreed on the point of Bush tax cuts... additional revenue is off the table?? Come on... get over yourselves. Making the rich richer while cutting education is a good way to be on your way out of superpowerdom.

Nobody makes the rich richer. The rich make themselves richer.
We can discuss where tax burdens should fall, but if you need to do it from a premise that the rich owe their success to everyone else, then you ought to question your conclusions.

They certainly don't 'owe' their success to anyone, but at this point (esp. the Ryan plan) we are blatantly sacrificing necessary social goods so they don't have to pay an extra few percent in taxes. It's not good for anyone to have an uneducated middle class in a country where the infrastructure is falling apart just to appease the top 1%.

[Tiago Splitter]

First of all, we 'fly-over' states keep you fed so YOU'RE WELCOME.

But, agreed on the point of Bush tax cuts... additional revenue is off the table?? Come on... get over yourselves. Making the rich richer while cutting education is a good way to be on your way out of superpowerdom.

Nobody makes the rich richer. The rich make themselves richer.
We can discuss where tax burdens should fall, but if you need to do it from a premise that the rich owe their success to everyone else, then you ought to question your conclusions.

They certainly don't 'owe' their success to anyone, but at this point (esp. the Ryan plan) we are blatantly sacrificing necessary social goods so they don't have to pay an extra few percent in taxes. It's not good for anyone to have an uneducated middle class in a country where the infrastructure is falling apart just to appease the top 1%.

$12,000 per student, at a minimum, still isn't enough?

Good lord people, the bottom 50% pay nothing in income taxes.

[MrPapagiorgio]

The current tax structure facilitates a system where the rich pay less than their fair share of taxes, thus keeping the rich richer.

Fair share? Isn't there a statistic that shows the top 1% of earners in this country pay about 50% of all income tax revenue or something like that. Yea, I'd say they don't pay their fair share.

[lawgod]

First of all, we 'fly-over' states keep you fed so YOU'RE WELCOME.

But, agreed on the point of Bush tax cuts... additional revenue is off the table?? Come on... get over yourselves. Making the rich richer while cutting education is a good way to be on your way out of superpowerdom.

Nobody makes the rich richer. The rich make themselves richer.
We can discuss where tax burdens should fall, but if you need to do it from a premise that the rich owe their success to everyone else, then you ought to question your conclusions.

The current tax structure facilitates a system where the rich pay less than their fair share of taxes, thus keeping the rich richer. If they keep a higher percentage of their earnings while you and I keep a lower percent. I’d say that is a fair assessment.

Fair share is a moral judgement. Your moral judgement may even be a good one.
But you should be able to say the judgement you are making.
Thus: "I think it is fair for rich people to be forced to contribute 60% of their earnings to less rich people."
Not: "I think that rich people are taking money away from everyone else unless they contribute 60% of their earnings to less rich people."

Also, what do you mean "if they keep a higher percentage..."? Firstly, they keep a lower percentage, and secondly, a strictly equal system would be a amount per head and not a percentage and would result in the richer keeping a higher percentage.

[IAFG]

If you think getting rich in America is based on merit or hard work, you don't understand Wall Street.

[lawgod]

If you think getting rich in America is based on merit or hard work, you don't understand Wall Street.

Sometimes it is based on being smart. Sometimes it is based on your father's hard work or being smart.

[scammedhard]

If you think getting rich in America is based on merit or hard work, you don't understand Wall Street.

Well, to their merit, they worked hard at bribing both Dems and Reps so that Wall Streeters can do whatever they want.

[deadhipsters]

The current tax structure facilitates a system where the rich pay less than their fair share of taxes, thus keeping the rich richer.

Fair share? Isn't there a statistic that shows the top 1% of earners in this country pay about 50% of all income tax revenue or something like that. Yea, I'd say they don't pay their fair share.

I think that illustrates the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The middle class is being undermined by anti-union groups, poor social policy, outsourcing, and probably NAFTA.

And it's the top 1% that pay 38% of all federal income tax. But let's keep in mind the current tax structure is the lowest it's ever been for the wealthiest 1%. The top one percent accounts for a large percentage of all the wealth in the country. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. But more importantly there is something wrong with allowing them advantages in the tax code that are unavailable to average Americans.

[Tiago Splitter]

The current tax structure facilitates a system where the rich pay less than their fair share of taxes, thus keeping the rich richer.

Fair share? Isn't there a statistic that shows the top 1% of earners in this country pay about 50% of all income tax revenue or something like that. Yea, I'd say they don't pay their fair share.

I think that illustrates the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The middle class is being undermined by anti-union groups, poor social policy, outsourcing, and probably NAFTA.

And it's the top 1% that pay 38% of all federal income tax. But let's keep in mind the current tax structure is the lowest it's ever been for the wealthiest 1%. The top one percent accounts for a large percentage of all the wealth in the country. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. But more importantly there is something wrong with allowing them advantages in the tax code that are unavailable to average Americans.

Well you and I agree. Switch to a flat tax or national sales tax and everything will be completely fair. Glad to see you on board.

[deadhipsters]

The current tax structure facilitates a system where the rich pay less than their fair share of taxes, thus keeping the rich richer.

Fair share? Isn't there a statistic that shows the top 1% of earners in this country pay about 50% of all income tax revenue or something like that. Yea, I'd say they don't pay their fair share.

I think that illustrates the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The middle class is being undermined by anti-union groups, poor social policy, outsourcing, and probably NAFTA.

And it's the top 1% that pay 38% of all federal income tax. But let's keep in mind the current tax structure is the lowest it's ever been for the wealthiest 1%. The top one percent accounts for a large percentage of all the wealth in the country. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. But more importantly there is something wrong with allowing them advantages in the tax code that are unavailable to average Americans.

Well you and I agree. Switch to a flat tax or national sales tax and everything will be completely fair. Glad to see you on board.

I'd take a flat tax. As long as you closed tax loop holes.

[scammedhard]

Well you and I agree. Switch to a flat tax or national sales tax and everything will be completely fair. Glad to see you on board.

I was all for Huckabee's "Fair Tax" or whatever it was called. Too bad he's not running. He was my favorite Rep.

[lawgod]

The current tax structure facilitates a system where the rich pay less than their fair share of taxes, thus keeping the rich richer.

Fair share? Isn't there a statistic that shows the top 1% of earners in this country pay about 50% of all income tax revenue or something like that. Yea, I'd say they don't pay their fair share.

I think that illustrates the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The middle class is being undermined by anti-union groups, poor social policy, outsourcing, and probably NAFTA.

And it's the top 1% that pay 38% of all federal income tax. But let's keep in mind the current tax structure is the lowest it's ever been for the wealthiest 1%. The top one percent accounts for a large percentage of all the wealth in the country. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. But more importantly there is something wrong with allowing them advantages in the tax code that are unavailable to average Americans.

You can say you think it is fair for them to pay more than they are now, without making up ridiculous ideas.
There is no question they pay way way more than anyone else. Any "advantages" they have in the tax code simply mean that they pay a bit less than otherwise. But there is nothing "advantageous" about having to pay billions of dollars in taxes, and then getting a small break on the billions.

[Tiago Splitter]

Well you and I agree. Switch to a flat tax or national sales tax and everything will be completely fair. Glad to see you on board.

I was all for Huckabee's "Fair Tax" or whatever it was called. Too bad he's not running. He was my favorite Rep.

Big Fair Tax fan here. I would also have liked to see Huckabee jump in the fray.

[deadhipsters]

The current tax structure facilitates a system where the rich pay less than their fair share of taxes, thus keeping the rich richer.

Fair share? Isn't there a statistic that shows the top 1% of earners in this country pay about 50% of all income tax revenue or something like that. Yea, I'd say they don't pay their fair share.

I think that illustrates the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The middle class is being undermined by anti-union groups, poor social policy, outsourcing, and probably NAFTA.

And it's the top 1% that pay 38% of all federal income tax. But let's keep in mind the current tax structure is the lowest it's ever been for the wealthiest 1%. The top one percent accounts for a large percentage of all the wealth in the country. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. But more importantly there is something wrong with allowing them advantages in the tax code that are unavailable to average Americans.

You can say you think it is fair for them to pay more than they are now, without making up ridiculous ideas.
There is no question they pay way way more than anyone else. Any "advantages" they have in the tax code simply mean that they pay a bit less than otherwise. But there is nothing "advantageous" about having to pay billions of dollars in taxes, and then getting a small break on the billions.

Paying billions in taxes on the billions of dollars they make each year. You are right that's ridiculous. Also how much did GE pay in taxes last year? Oh thats right. Zero on 10 billion. That's fair.