|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 17, 2016 17:09:18 GMT -6
Love how you play with words LOL? 6th graders have a choice for POTUS, so far they are not allowed to vote. Sure they can have an informal school vote, they do that in our school but has zero bearing on the outcome and yes the facts are many get their information from their parents not from looking up online the issues LOL. Sure a few might get more at home or on their own but not many just the facts.
I am all for more choices, not less. You confuse me with the progressives that want to make those choices for your or I. That way we are more dependent on them for our future. I choose my own path and future and have done so for years. Achievement versus exsisiting BIG difference and that is what I teach my kids and those I coach in baseball and basketball. No one becomes great sitting back and watching others, go out and make yourself the best you can be, no one can deny your work effort, without hard work you have less ability to achieve greatness. Just the facts.
I am sure the left would love to get them that early and mold and shape their minds as to why socialism is the way to go for you Johnny and Amy as you get older. You see our school still gives out A-F grading scales even in grade school. Why? That is how real life works, people,wonder why so many kids today leave HS and do poorly at college? It is because HS used to model post education much closer than they do today in many progressive areas, college professors don't play you either do the work or fail the class, they have little time to be reminding young adults when homework is due or giving second chances on test, as that is how the working world works.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 17, 2016 21:32:26 GMT -6
As to the fur ranches one is here already and the other will come this year. I don't know how many more will come here but one of the main reasons, is space, favorable regulations, available labor at lower costs(mostly Hispanic undocumented) and much more available food industry by-product feed from rendering, butchering and waste.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 18, 2016 7:23:33 GMT -6
no, I certainly don't confuse you with progressives- progressive actually stand for something, not against everything like you are
once again you refuse to either answer the question, or debate the topic- instead trying to make schools another red herring, when the ONLY reason schools matter, is like coyote control, they are perfect examples of socialism.
your family makes a living sucking off the tit of socialism, and you deny it exisats.
I guess common sense isn't so common after all
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 18, 2016 8:20:54 GMT -6
Tman you brought up schools not me. LOL
You have little knowledge on coyote control and the budgeting of such. In fact more and more counties in the western US are going to country programs not ran by WS. They hired WS to do some contract flying and pay the rates with money from a self imposed tax on livestock along with other state generated revenue sources. Self imposed tax.
Again in SD we used to get a percent age from the federal coffers in our state budget, a deal worked out in the 70's when the federal govt was trying to cut back becaus money was very tight. They offered X amount a year if a state took control of the program, South Dakota is the last state ran ADC program in the nation. We lost that funding source with the cutting of pass thru money done at the federal level with congress, money was tight for a period of time, but the ranchers and producers of SD came through with money at the state level, it could have failed and life would have went on. Again each rancher pays a head tax and then some counties have a predator board and self impose another fee on themselves inside of those counties. That allows them to better their control with private hired pilots paid for by their self imposed secondary head tax. They also could afford to buy the trappers in those counties a few things each fiscal year, like dog food, ammuntion or reloading items, a spotlight for night calling, etc.
If you would like to see predator control as the key to the chain of socialism go for it, but there are far,far more dangers ahead at the federal level when it comes to the entire body of the united states than that of WS and state and county ran predator control programs and the socialistic nature of such.
That is FACT.
The things I am looking at are not choices,but mandates and things that kill motivation not make it prosper. The central govt wants to have more say and more control over our lives with that comes power, because human nature tells us we tend to rely on things too much. Choices,choices and more choices will beat mandates anyday of the week in a free society.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 19, 2016 7:02:48 GMT -6
I brought up schools only in that even little kids, would have the guts to stand behind a candidate- rather than hide
lets see- a % from the feds (meaning me and Bryce among others)
lets see- ranchers and farmers "came through" with the money
lets see- a head tax
yup- socialism-
------------
you really don't get the point, do you?
coyote control isn't the KEY, or whatever red herring you want to label it with- coyote control is just one of 100s of examples of socialism that YOU have taken part in (and drawn a paycheck)or you still take advantage of everyday.
as your wife does- and I'm guessing, that the health care you have, is through the school- schools paid for with tax dollars, salaries paid for with tax dollars, health care paid for by tax dollars (Bryce and me among others)- and you have zero problem using that health care plan
unless you DO practice what you preach, and refuse to use the plan?
or is it a classic case of GOP syndrome- do what I say, not what I do?
but health care for others though the govt is socialism! and you are against it.
talk about having your cake and eating it too............
----------------
We saw what free market and deregulation led to- the great recession- and you want LESS govt control.
oh my
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 19, 2016 11:09:08 GMT -6
so this should be the debate- accept that socialism is part of our daily life's- and adds to our life's in multiple ways- practical ways- schools- health- roads- co-ops and yes coyote control
and the govt adds to quality of life as well-
so there cannot be any debate on that- unless you truly DO live on an island
the debate is in where, and how much.
and that is where prioritys come in
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 20, 2016 7:25:23 GMT -6
School health care now your really making me laugh LOL. School health care good grief. School health care is not even in the picture for anyone with a family and teaching in a classroom. Most that have a spouse cover them under their plans away for the majority of school districts. School health care LOL. Inhave those exact figures if you would like me to show you. lol?. Again only so much only to go around and a school cannot run in the red. So the majority of schools do not offer anywhere close to a good healthcare plan been that way for many years Tman. Lose some of the govt mandates and close the federal dept of education and the schools might have more money for a better healthcare plan for their employees.
Yes less govts control is the way. Freddie and fanny where run under the leader ship of Mr Frank who said they where solvent , the ONLY thing that has changed is we have switched where those loans are being done from and by what dept of of govt is all Tman The USDA has picked up a lot of those home loans.
Roads,schools sure but the rest is not adding value to every day lives not mine. They are taking away more freedoms and giving big govt too much power. Fact.
Ronald Reagan once said, we don't get into budget deficits from people being taxed to low, we get into budget deficits by big govt spending too much! Amen.
Look I never stated all taxation was bad, I Have stated and showed the factual numbers, from the tax foundation how how Bernies Sanders plans would hurt this country, those numbers are as close to facts as your going to get, because he will not win and not be able to implement all of his plans that would hurt this country thank god, yet Hillary is right on his heels and looking for more ways to tax and spend. That is the left montra , those that become beholden to the central govt has less power than those offered freedoms and choices, simple really.
2 different ideals but for you to say the left party is the one looking for more freedoms to Americans sorry that is falsehood no other way to put it. The more and more we allow our central govt to control daily lives,the further we get away from the foundation of our country, again you guys speak so called facts on how moving towards more socialism is a good thing and can be done, yet not one word uttered on the largest of social experiment in the USA Indian Reservations.
So many facts on the ideals of moving closer and closer to MORE socialism is a bad thing not even funny. There is not an endless supply of money, yet the left thinks we can get it all from the rich. Their fair share will change multiple times as more programs are added, and those who get hurt the most? The middle class which will dissolves way under such system and more and more people beholden to the central govt for daily needs. We have seen this happen in other countries and also here yet no one speaks to it? I wonder why? Tell me how great the Indian reservations are and how the BIA has done such great things and the freedoms those people enjoy under the socialist flag and leadership please.
Again what social programs are you willing to cut to have a balanced budget if needed? What social programs should any state look to cut that are in need of running a balanced budget in their states? This idea that the central govt and states can keep spending and spending and spending is just appalling to me. There has to come a time where they look to make hard choices and start to take down debt or if you feel today we have hard times for the middle class we have seen nothing yet.
We cannot keep borrowing free money in all walks of life at some point it is going to bite us all hard. Houses below 3 percent, vehicles 0 percent, people taking on more and more debt because he have slow job growth and poor trade deals. Illegals taxing our systems as well. Taking and not paying in, it happens and there is no debate on that period. Ever rising cost on goods and services.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 20, 2016 7:45:27 GMT -6
ok, we made a breakthrough- you now understand that socialism is not only present, but needed in our daily lifes.
disease control, meat regulations, public transit, the national guard, churches, public lands and waterways, the army, power co-ops, Ag co-ops...TC the list goes on and on. And don't tell me you aren't going to take your SS check, and your medicare insurance in the future
what "new socialism" are you afraid of? maybe we can put a face to that boogyman-
the tax foundation how how Bernies Sanders plans would hurt this country, those numbers are as close to facts as your going to get, because he will not win and not be able to implement all of his plans that would hurt this country thank god, yet Hillary is right on his heels and looking for more ways to tax and spend. That is the left montra , those that become beholden to the central govt has less power than those offered freedoms and choices, simple really.
the tax foundation is crap- and you know it- its partisan and is very pro-business and conservative.
tax and spend- Really?
lets be real specific- 1 "tax and spend" plan at a time-
and lets compare that to your candidate- oh, that's right- you don't have the convictions of your ideals enough to be public with it
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 20, 2016 8:00:41 GMT -6
Tax foundation is crap ok? LOL. Because it goes against your guy. I am sure your information and accounting background has data to refute such? They did not talk about loosing a handful of jobs or 250,000 jobs but millions of jobs the numbers are there and they explain out exactly why. I doubt you have taken the time to read such either.
we all need to be pro business that is part of the problem yikes! Business is what makes the world go round not just the US . Less business less taxes go into the central govt that is a fact.
Tman look at Bernies plans and tell me they a not tax and spend? Really? He is going to raise taxes, which will effect jobs and spend it on more social programs and cut efficiently in our country. The added value of said taxes will not out weigh the cost to jobs and people. As business drops of you would agree 15 percent of 6 million is less than 15 percent of 2 million correct? Unless the plan is then to double the tax rate on the 2 million after the company loss sales of 4 million? Does that sound like a plan that will garner prosperity and Growth in this nation?
Again give me more state and local,control and less federal control any day. that is where the people's voices are herd the loudest.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 20, 2016 8:53:06 GMT -6
so no surprise- once again, TC has no facts
I asked you to be specific, you declined.
whose tax plan do you support? and since I know you won't respond to that, what is YOUR plan- and please, be detailed
do you agree 100 million is more than 200 million? how about does 500 jobs offset 300 jobs? or lets stay simple- I agree- 1 is smaller than 4?
what does the above mean?
nothing- just repeating your babble on made up numbers- if you really want to debate- then enough crap-
what plan of bernies specifically do you oppose?
good thing I don't hold my breath waiting you to actually answer a question
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 20, 2016 13:07:04 GMT -6
Made up numbers but you have the real deal,on Bernie hey? LOL.
What the stats mean Tman is under Bernies plan as he has laid them out we will loose 6 million jobs, while raising taxes on many areas of business. At a time where business as a whole is not what it used to be. Some forget and like to use Bill Clinton as their example, many do not relise take away the advent of the Internet and see how the country performs with the tax rates where they were. Give him 33 percent to of the income because we are thre now with all the buy outs and many jobs leaving the USA and middle class workers. Gateway used to be made where I used to live , they where bought out and moved to Mexico to remain as a company, they had no problems paying the tax rates back then, the Waite brothers where making it hand over fist, not anymore than was a bubble of time, those days are long gone.
Bill had the prefect time and the reason we balanced the budget, I will agree one down fall I had on Bush and some of congress vpdurirng his time he spent to much dang money. While Bush was in office the left kept complaining about the size of our military, the money he was spending which I can agree with on certain points no doubt. Now we have 8 years of Obama and the left isn't complaint about the deficit much at all, 20 trillion and Obama added 12 trillion and the left will again put fourth a candidate that will do nothing but keep adding to this debt and the liberials are all fine with it now, why?
If we want to cut the debt where would you cut? Because Bernie or Hillary has talked about how to manage such?
Instead they talk more taxes and more spending, just because you say it isn't so means nothing as your counting on your side. Read the tax foundation please, I will take their accountants over you anyday sorry. The numbers have been worked and they call themselves bipartisan yet you claim them to be in with the right. Refute the numbers and tell me how?
I will support No tax plan that wants to increase some taxes by double digits and add more new taxes for the only reason to pay for more programs and enlarge what are already in the books, Really Simple.
My plan is to lessen taxes, add incentives for business to bring jobs back to the US, more exporting,much more than what Obama has accomplished. Cut where their is fat and we all know there is fat across the board. Take a little pain now for a better future. The Liberial left thinks the world will be a great place as long as the central govt is providing what we need, how they get their is where the REAL problems are and trying to keep that train going with funding gets us more deeper and deeper in debt and is a job killer in our free economy. To think we could be anything but a free economy would ruin our place in the world.
I do not want to live on a modified Indian reservation nod thank you.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 20, 2016 13:27:13 GMT -6
What plans of a bernies do I oppose? Good grief which ones do I not oppose? He is a socialist for crying out loud.
Free college not a good deal has been explained 7 ways to Sunday by many as to why this is a bad plan and a costly one. Not going to work for who he thinks.
AR ban I oppose. Does nothing but take away freedoms period.
Income wealth redistribution been shown 15.00 per hour not going to work in the favor of th American worker, says that will end poverty he knows it will not ,just use what sliding scale on social programs their will still be a poverty line and they will still fit income guidelines, it will create more PT jobs an less FT jobs not good.
If he lifts the cap,on taxable income for SS above 250,000 will those paying in more get more as well? I doubt it. That is wrong in my book.
How much will is cost All employers to provide 12 weeks paid sick leave, 2 weeks of vacation and 7 sick days each year for every employee PT or FT?
Single pay health system? What the cost for such will be astounding and taxation will be at all times highs, creating long lines and the wealthy still,getting the best care because they have cash in hand. Will do nothing to lessen cost, just make care go down.
Single pay govt ran healthcare for 330 million people? Ok.......... NOT. The middle income people say a family of 4 making 73,000 a year add in all of Bernies new taxes what do they have left at the end of the month? Specially figuring in states with high state and local taxation as well, sorry back to the beholden program of an Indian reservation. So we raise min wage to 15 per hour and the govt gets from business all the more and the people working for such? LOL. I call that a shell game.
Unionized labor? Not in a global economy there is no way your going to compete in such with a increase in unionized labor sorry. Those people will be replaced with machines on many facets of jobs, has been done for many,many years will just escalate this happening. Business will do more with less human workforce. Have you seen McDonald's new kiosk? Good grief. Unions are done for the most part except for govt entities. Even the auto makers are creating new jobs with salary caps on them, sign it or your not going to get hired.
Sorry but Bernie is not anywhere near reality with his programs and how he will pay for such. The numbers have been crunched and it is not good for the US.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 20, 2016 13:49:05 GMT -6
More reasons against feel the Bern:
Bernie Sanders might not be quite the lefty radical that new U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is, but the socialist senator from Vermont still really wants to embiggen American government. Maybe make the good 'ol US of A more like France, or Scandinavia. Indeed, when ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Sanders about Republicans attacking him for wanting the U.S. to look more Nordic, Sanders replied: "That's right. What's wrong with that?"
Well, a lot.
Among the items on the Democratic presidential candidate's pricey wish list: Medicare for everybody, expanded Social Security, improved national infrastructure, free public college, and paid leave fund for workers. Add them all up, as The Wall Street Journal has, and it comes out to at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade. That's nearly $2 trillion more a year, when current annual federal spending is $3.8 trillion. And that massive total doesn't include Sanders' universal preschool plan, which is still in the works. That could easily be another $100 billion over a decade.
Do the math another way: Annual federal spending has averaged between 20 and 21 percent of GDP for the past four decades. The Sanders spending-palooza would tack on another 10 percentage points, pushing total federal spending to at least 30 percent of GDP. Like, immediately. To place that number in context, the worried wonks over at the Congressional Budget Office are alarmed that federal spending is on trend to hit 25 percent of GDP by 2040.
Can America, its federal debt having doubled since 2007, afford such a spending splurge? Political scientist Lane Kenworthy — like Sanders, a self-described "social democrat" — thinks we can. In his 2014 book, Social Democratic America, he outlines a plan similar to Sanders', one that would boost federal spending by about 50 percent. Kenworthy notes that right before the Great Recession, total U.S. government spending at all levels totaled 37 percent of GDP. The Sanders/Kenworthy plans would boost that number to about the same as that in France, Sweden, and Denmark.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 20, 2016 13:56:13 GMT -6
SHARE TRENDING COVER STORY Starbucks Boss Opens Up Most Popular New Posts on Bernie Sanders' 10 Ways To Mess With The Economy Please log in or sign up to comment.
POST COMMENT Commenting Guidelines + FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION Trending Now
Economics & Finance The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets AUG 8, 2015 @ 06:19 AM 62,143 VIEWS Bernie Sanders' 10 Ways To Mess With The Economy
Tim Worstall , CONTRIBUTOR I have opinions about economics, finance and public policy. FOLLOW ON FORBES (1466) Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. You will not be greatly surprised to hear that I am not wholly in favour of the methods that Bernie Sanders intends to use should, if the heavens forsake us, he does in fact become President of the United States. A classical liberal like me is most unlikely to approve of the sort of thing that a not very attentive progressive PGR +0.44% liberal would do to mess up a market economy. However, given that I’m unlikely to like the sort of economic measures he proposes it is perhaps worth having a look at what he is proposing and see why it is that I don’t like them. The answer being, largely, that they won’t do what he thinks they will and are thus counter-productive.
Over at Salon they’ve got a little list of the joys that Bernie has in store for us:
10 ways Bernie Sanders would make the economy work for everyone
Well, sure, OK, we’d all like that. The question is though, will these policies actually achieve that?
Even before his current campaign for the White House, Bernie thought through, in ten easy steps, a plan to meet human needs by raising hundreds of billions of dollars from the wealthy and corporations, and by reducing wasteful spending. Not a single dime from the list below would come from working people.
That’s not Bernie, that’s one of his cheerleaders. And it’s entirely wrong: as any even casual acquaintance with the idea of tax incidence would show. Because the economy is interconnected, the foot bone really is connected to the ankle bone, it is near impossible to levy a tax which only hits rich people. And it’s absolutely impossible to gain tax revenue from corporations in the first place: it’s always some live human being whose wallet ends up lighter. And in the US that burden of the corporate income tax is (there’s some argument about the portions here, but absolutely none about the basic structure) carried by shareholders and workers in the economy. Different CBO reports put the portions differently, but between 30 and 70% of the corporate income tax is really paid by workers in the form of lower wages.
It’s just not possible to increase corporate taxes and then say that not a single dime will come from working people.
But on to Bernie’s actual list of policies:
1. Stop corporations from using offshore tax havens to avoid U.S. taxes. Each and every year, the United States loses an estimated $100 billion in tax revenues due to offshore tax abuses by the wealthy and large corporations. The situation has become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the “home” to more than 18,000 corporations.
The wealthy and large corporations should not be allowed to avoid paying taxes by setting up tax shelters in Panama, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Bahamas or other tax haven countries. The first bill that I introduced in the Senate (the Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act) would raise more than $580 billion over the next decade by eliminating the most egregious corporate offshore tax haven abuse.
This isn’t quite as he says. It’s not an abuse of US law says you only pay US corporate income tax on foreign profits that you bring back into the US and so you don’t bring those foreign profits back into the US and do not pay the US corporate income tax upon it.
But it’s certainly possible to increase the collection of US corporate income tax on those foreign profits. And it’s also true that this is a cost that wouldn’t be bourne by US workers, but by foreign ones in part. So, OK, while I might not approve of this policy it’s not counter-productive.
2. Establish a Robin Hood tax on Wall Street speculators. Both the economic crisis and the deficit crisis are a direct result of the greed and recklessness on Wall Street. Creating a speculation fee of just 0.03 percent on the sale of credit default swaps, derivatives, options, futures, and large amounts of stock would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the job-creating productive economy, and reduce the deficit by $352 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Two problems with this. As this paper of mine points out (and this became evidence to the House of Lords on the subject and also my one and only to date peer reviewed paper) this FTT or Robin Hood tax would shrink the overall size of the economy. So much so that two further things would happen. The first being that a smaller economy would produce less tax revenue from all of the other taxes that we apply to said economy. And, yes, the fall in those other tax revenues would be greater than the revenue we would see coming in from the FTT.
And I’m sorry but this is true. Absolutely no one as yet has managed to produce a macroeonomic model where this does not happen. There would therefore be no extra revenue from an FTT: there would be a revenue loss.
And of course, if the economy is smaller then everyone is poorer. And if everyone is poorer then we’ve got dimes coming out of the pockets of working people, haven’t we?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 20, 2016 13:57:49 GMT -6
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Pinterest Bernie Idiot 750 Ads by Adblade Get a $200 cash bonus*. A checking account that’s worth the switch.
If you ever want a good laugh, head over to Bernie Sanders’ Twitter feed.
If you ever want a good cry, take a look at how many people unironically retweeted and “liked” his comments.
Here at the Federalist Papers we already published a top ten list of Bernie’s craziest tweets, but here’s a new one we think would’ve made the cut:
This is one of those statistics that is technically true, but not all that impressive when you dig into why.
That’s because, as Tim Worstall points out, the bottom 25% of Americans have a negative net worth. So anyone with a few bucks and no debt will technically have more money than 25% of Americans combined.
In fact, given that I have equity in my home and no other debt than mortgage, I have, as is highly likely do all readers of these pages, more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans added together. For as Felix points us to:
In 2009, roughly 1 in 4 (24.8%) of American households had zero or negative net worth, up from 18.6% in 2007, and 37.1% of households had net worth of less than $12,000, up from 30.0% in 2007.
Wealth is always more unequally distributed than income. By the way, it isn’t even true that all of those households with zero or negative wealth are what we would call poor either. It’s entirely possible to have no net assets while having a good income, even a high income. All you need to have is debts higher than your assets: something that will almost certainly be true of anyone with student debt and fresh out of college for example. Fresh out of grad school you might well have $100,000, $200,000 of debt, hey, possibly even from medical school you might be carrying $500,000. None of us are actually going to weep all that hard for you though, not you with that associates job at a Wall Street law firm on $100,000 or more, not a newly qualified doctor on hundreds of thousands a year.
Even if you have a negative net worth, you can technically be richer than a whole bunch of people combined. As was written in Forbes:
Leigh Caldwell points out that anyone in the bottom 20% has more wealth than the bottom 20% combined, since they all have negative wealth, and no individual negative number in a group can be less than the sum of a whole group of negative numbers
So Bernie’s claim is obviously nonsense. But even if it wasn’t, what’s his solution – what we should limit the amount of wealth someone can accumulate? Bernie rightly earned himself some mockery from the rest of the Twittersphere, as reported by Twitchy:
|
|
RShaw
Demoman...
Posts: 147
|
Post by RShaw on Mar 20, 2016 18:43:29 GMT -6
Webster's definition of Socialism
Q&A concerning Democratic Socialism
Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
Won't socialism be impractical because people will lose their incentive to work?
Good grief. Good luck with that one.
But hasn't the European Social Democratic experiment failed?
If I am going to devote time to politics, why shouldn't I focus on something more immediate?
Pretty much sums it up.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 20, 2016 19:39:19 GMT -6
You don't define net income by comparing annual income to debt. You may be meaning net worth but that is part of a balance sheet with assets and liabilities. Annual income can determine the amount of debt you can cover or how fast your net worth could rise or fall. College student with 100K of income and 200K of educational debt may be short term negative net worth but not for very long with even average money management. The ones with real issues are the ones with 60-70K and a 35K career or those that went to private colleges, spent 30-50K and they don't even have an associate's degree to show for their efforts or in the case of many military taxpayer funds that result in now advanced income potential or degrees.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 21, 2016 17:25:13 GMT -6
Bryce many places will look at your gross minus all exspeness to look at your rating for a loan, they want to know how much debt to income ratio you have. As stated a guy could have 450,000 in debt and make 260,000 a year and would have a negative income. Depending on the numbers.
A pharmacist might have a 230,000 house, another 110,000 on loan debt and a car payment of 700 per month, by some he would be seen as a negative income, yet his house payment is 1600, he pays 1000 a month on student loans and 700 on the car those 3 add up to 3,300 yet he makes 135,000 per year yet he still after taxes and a few other bills has 7,900 a month so he has 4,600 left over after those 3 payments.
All depends on how the govt decideds income. As stated though factually wealth is far more unequally dispearsed than wages. Has been that way for many years.
The question is why do they not have a degrees to show for the exspense of college? Will giving away free college to all, help that situation out or make it worse? Hard to be really responsible for many when things are 100 percent FREE, that has been shown and proven called human nature. I went to college with a handful of guys just like that, mom and dad footed their bill, I footed 100 percent of mine, they screwed off and parties every weekend , I made sure my grades stay up and graduated 4 of the 7 did not they ended up doing other things and mom and dad where left holding the bill. No degree and one went to be a meat cutter at a Grocery store, one went back to the family farm and the others I have no idea on.
Why should anyone pay to make college free for all? Will the best and brightest still reap the harvest of such?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 22, 2016 6:42:51 GMT -6
TC- read none of your posts, because once again, you can't put specifics together with numbers- again, I expected nothing less from you- if you ever do, I'll respond. Saying you are against something cause "its bad" is nonsense in a debate
Rshaw- going to MW- it starts by saying- the SIMPLE definition of socialism, is what you noted. If you read beyond those 1st 2 sentences
the type we have been talking about here (well with the exception of TC who has zero understanding of the word), the type that has been wit this country since day one, is this:
Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as “democratic socialism,” in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.
Now- if you don't believe in that- so be it- I do. And I always have. but don't debate strawmen, debate what actually is proposed, and has been proposed.
Q&A concerning Democratic Socialism
Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
no, it does not. You are thinking of communism. See above definition.
nothing about this- Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.
is true or proposed by anyone that I've seen. and I'm not sure what blog you are quoting- again, that's communism- not social democracy (as we have had for 200+ years)
as far as your other quotes including the above, its easy to see they are from some socialist handbook- but that's as far away from social democracy as Hitlers writings are to the GOP- yet in both cases, they advocate facism.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 22, 2016 17:19:16 GMT -6
They don't look at expenses subtracted from income. The lenders look at income and determine a safe level or percentage of your monthly income can go to mortgage or real estate debt. Prior to 2009 that percentage got to 35 to 40% and some loans with no money down. The pharmacist in your example could probably have about 3-4 K per month going to house mortgage and still be viable to a lender. That would be about 25-30% of total income and that would most likely include taxes and insurance in an escrow account as well, so on a 30 year mortgage with say 20% down the person could be in a 300-400K home. Depending upon location etc. that may be considered good debt. If one runs a business then that is different then net income is critical, especially if one invests in a lot of expensive, depreciable income producing assets that need to be maintained or updated frequently. That is when many lenders look at asset turnover rates which is still not based on expense either.
Bryce
|
|