2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

Slightly off topic but I got a good laugh:

I saw one of these for sale in the Mission neighborhood. I guess someone in Mexico started making Trump piñatas after he went on the immigration rant and they are selling out.

NasstyNate said:

So Democrats just happen to be consistently lucky over a half century? What are the odds of that?

Click to expand...

I never said it was just about luck, neither did your study. So why waste my time or your time by asking that bullshit question? Go actually read the study that YOU posted. They list a lot more factors than luck. I listed what they considered to be 4 significant ones. Yet you come back with "so they were just lucky?". Idiotic.

The Human Q-Tip said:

The best way to solve the student loan problems would have been to cancel government involvement in student loans. No grants, and no government guarantees of student loans made by the private sector.

That would have significsntly reduced the huge boondoggle that is higher education, and cratered the cost of going to college. Basically, a lot more colleges would have started to do what community colleges are doing today.

Click to expand...

The alternative, and likely better, idea would be to make state funded education free and regulate tuition costs directly. Most European nations offer some form of free college. Finland has the same college enrollment rate as the United States but charges no one to attend their schools; regardless of nationality.

Germany however, has the right idea. To change the nature of high school education to suit the individuals attending. You should be geared towards a technical degree at a technical or vocational school if you are to become a mechanic or a technician or a chef; rather than going to a full university. A high school education should have some level of usefulness to young adults.

But to say that we should simply throw our kids into the free market and expect it to work itself out, I don't think, makes a ton of sense.

RonG said:

I am still upset about paying the rate of taxes we have to pay over 250k a year, when we only make 260k. There is no incentive for me to make a dollar over 250k. None. I had to buy a travel trailer (counts as a second home) this year and finance it just to save on my taxes and get me below the tax threshold.

Click to expand...

Don't take this as a personal attack, just trying to educate you and others who do not understand how we are taxed. A person earning $250,000/year pays the same amount of taxes on the first $90,000 of his income as the guy that earns $90,000.

Here are the tax rates for a single person:

Tax Bracket (Single) Marginal Tax Rate
$0+ 10%
$9,075+ 15%
$36,900+ 25%
$89,350+ 28%
$186,350+ 33%
$405,100+ 35%
$406,750+ 39.60%

A guy that earns $200,000 does not pay 33% on $200,000, his taxes are calculated as so:

10% of $9,075 = $907.50
15% of ($36,900-$9,075) = $4,173.75
25% of ($89,350-$36,900) = $13,112.50
28% of (186,350-$89.350) = $27,160
33% of ($200,000 - $186,350) = $4,504.50

Add the bolded up = $49,858.25 in total taxes on $200,000 in taxable income, or roughly 25% effective tax rate (his income is not taxed at 33%, just because he falls in the 33% tax bracket).

Only $13,650 of his income is taxed at 33%, not his entire $200,000. So, if he makes $10,000,000, only the income over $406,750 is taxed at 39.6%.

So, do not ever turn down a raise or make bad investments to try to prevent yourself from reaching the next tax bracket, because only that income over that threshold is taxed at that rate.

NasstyNate said:

Do you have any support that free money is driving up the cost of tuition? Because I don't think the data supports that assertion.

Click to expand...

My pharmacy school tuition conveniently increased to almost the exact amount that me and my classmates were eligible for in student loans every year. I doubt that is a coincidence.

NasstyNate said:

I think the problem is much more complex than a simple cost curve, mostly due to concerns about access for all, which does not fit within a simple economic supply/demand model. My contention in your scenario would be that lesser schools (those attended by lower achieving students) and private institutions without substantial endowments would face the largest challenges and would see many closures. Tuition at mid to upper tier schools would be unaffected.

But please, take the effort. I'll consider and respond in good faith.

Click to expand...

For the shit Nate is getting right now, he's right. You can't describe the student tuition and cost issue without also discussing accessibility and the social need for greater education among the population to keep up with international labor markets, among a myriad of other factors.

Again, simply citing middle school free market economic theory isn't sufficient to make the argument that we should be the only nation in Western Civilization that does not subsidize education. If it were really that simple, why hasn't any other nation come to this same conclusion?

RonG said:

This isn't to hard to understand.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is.

I agree that government-backed loans play a role in increased tuition costs. However, it is only one of several factors. This talking point that increased loans is what is causing increased tuition is a huge correlation/causation fallacy, which the study you cited admits - "As discussed in Section 2, between 2001 and 2012, average college tuition rose 46% in real terms while aggregate student loan originations more than doubled. Absent any identica-tion assumption these joint increases cannot be interpreted causally because of simultaneity issues." They then use a regression analysis between only two variables, tuition and loan amounts, to claim a causal relationship between the two based on changes to loan access in 2008 and 2010. In short, this study supports your claim only from 2008 and on. I reject their claims for reasons I will address later.

But tuition has been rising since well before then. Let's look at some historical data. If your and others' claims are correct, then we should see spikes around times where more loans were made available. The study you cited looked at slight increases to access in 2008 and 2010. But we don't see that expected outcome. Instead, we see a gradual, steady increase over time. If your and Q-Tip's claim is correct, then you need to make a causal case, i.e. showing some steady increase in government loans commensurate with increases in tuition. The data just isn't there.

And now my theory, and something that I am gobsmacked that your study did not address - drastic and sustained cuts to federal and state funding for higher education, which passes the costs on to students in the form of higher tuition. This is the largest factor, combined with increasing access to lower income students by subsidizing theirs by raising tuition on higher income students, increased competition for professors, prestige pricing (keeping up with the tuition of elite universities), and yes, the availability of government-backed loans.

Put simply, your theory is incredibly reductive and simplistic, and if put into action would be a lake in the ocean.

I think that student loan forgiveness should be expanded. The taxpayers should not look at forgiveness as a negative, but more so as a wise investment.

I'd like a system that took 10% of people's net pay out of their pay checks for 10 years worth of full-time paychecks (260 paychecks, for typical biweekly pay). The remaining balance is forgiven.

Only offer forgiveness to graduates (to encourage graduation and to curb back fraud). The forgiveness should be an investment, not a reward.

Grandfather all existing people in and prevent student loan abuse from future borrowers.

1. Student loan money should go right to universities and cover tuition and fees. Want loans to pay for a book? Bring in a receipt to be reimbursed or allow bookstores to bill the Bursar's office. The idea here is to prevent people from borrowing more than what is necessary to pay for SCHOOL.

2. Universities should scale back to lower tuition. I went to OSU for undergrad back in the early 2000s. They were constantly building 2-3 new buildings at a time. There was so much construction going on and still is to this day. With technology advancing, there are many only offerings that are replacing the traditional style classroom. There is no need for these 100+ million dollar construction projects. The only facilities that need to be modernized are science research labs, as they provide practical, hands-on experience. With online offerings, the cost of education should be much less.

My wife took a few online courses this past school year and Kent charges a $198 per credit hour "distance learning" fee. She paid $2400 in distance learning fees... ON TOP OF TUITION AND OTHER FEES ALREADY ASSOCIATED WITH THESE COURSES. Higher education is a racket. It is a necessary evil, but changes need to be made to make it more affordable for the average middle class person. Noone should be drowning in debt to get a BSN from a state-funded university. Scale back and mandate these universities to lower the cost of online course offerings.

3. Many schools require students to live on campus their freshmen year. Many schools are now mandating that sophomores live on campus as well. This is absurd. Living on campus should NOT be a requirement at any school. It is expensive and contributes to massive student debt. Living on campus should be optional and student loans should not pay for dorms... not public student loans, anyways. If you want a private loan to help pay for this expense, fine. Public loans should only pay for tuition and fees (and books).

4. Athletics. Very few schools athletic departments make enough money to fund their entire athletic department. I love sports, but college students and taxpayers should not be subsidizing athletic departments. If a sport is not self-sufficient, it should be eliminated. That might mean the elimination of 90% of college athletics, but so-be-it. Professional sports will have to fund their own semi-pro leagues, not college students and taxpayers.

5. Federal Pell Grants fund low-income individuals. Why should 18 year old Jim whose parents make $40,000 combined be eligible for $5,500 in free money that 18 year old Sarah cannot get, because her parents make $70,000 combined. Jim can still take out the same amount in student loans that Sarah can, even though he just got a $5,500 gift from the taxpayers. Jim gets this gift every year he is in undergrad ($22,000 total). Jim and Sarah both graduate with Chemical Engineering degrees and start off at $70,000/year. Why should Sarah have to pay more back than Jim? Eliminate the Federal Pell Grant program and make forgiveness more practical (10 years at 10% of net income, or until the student's debt is paid off).

6. Private and for-profit schools. Tuition is not subsidized by states at these schools. Public student loans should not be available to people who go to private schools that major in something that lacks jobs and/or does not pay well. Public student loans are an investment in society, not a gift to blow as you see fit. If you want to major in Art History at a private school and pay $50,000/year to do so, come up with the funds yourself or go to a state school Private student loans should be eligible for bankruptcy to prevent these companies from preying on 18 year olds whose judgement center of their brain is not fully developed (until age 25).

gourimoko said:

For the shit Nate is getting right now, he's right.

Click to expand...

I can handle it.

Kyrieville said:

Don't take this as a personal attack, just trying to educate you and others who do not understand how we are taxed. A person earning $250,000/year pays the same amount of taxes on the first $90,000 of his income as the guy that earns $90,000.

Here are the tax rates for a single person:

Tax Bracket (Single) Marginal Tax Rate
$0+ 10%
$9,075+ 15%
$36,900+ 25%
$89,350+ 28%
$186,350+ 33%
$405,100+ 35%
$406,750+ 39.60%

A guy that earns $200,000 does not pay 33% on $200,000, his taxes are calculated as so:

10% of $9,075 = $907.50
15% of ($36,900-$9,075) = $4,173.75
25% of ($89,350-$36,900) = $13,112.50
28% of (186,350-$89.350) = $27,160
33% of ($200,000 - $186,350) = $4,504.50

Add the bolded up = $49,858.25 in total taxes on $200,000 in taxable income, or roughly 25% effective tax rate (his income is not taxed at 33%, just because he falls in the 33% tax bracket).

Only $13,650 of his income is taxed at 33%, not his entire $200,000. So, if he makes $10,000,000, only the income over $406,750 is taxed at 39.6%.

So, do not ever turn down a raise or make bad investments to try to prevent yourself from reaching the next tax bracket, because only that income over that threshold is taxed at that rate.

Click to expand...

I know how it works, clearly. I told you what our income was after deductions and we made even more this year hence me looking for more deductions. Your information is accurate and helpful and might benefit someone else.

Not that anyone cares...

FBI investigation of Hillary’s emails is ‘criminal probe’
By Jamie Schram, Geoff Earle and Laura Italiano

August 5, 2015 | 7:26pm


Modal Trigger



Hillary ClintonPhoto: WireImage
MORE ON:
HILLARY CLINTON
O'Malley camp blasts DNC for debates 'facilitating' Clinton

Bernie Sanders closes in on Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire

Huma planned party for Clinton pal on taxpayers' dime

FBI investigating security of Hillary's private email server
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured email account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.

The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.

“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.

“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”

Clinton’s camp has downplayed the inquiry as civil and fact-finding in nature. Clinton herself has said she is “confident” that she never knowingly sent or received anything that was classified via her private email account.

But the inspector general for the intelligence community has told Congress that of 40 Clinton emails randomly reviewed as a sample of her correspondence as secretary of state, four contained classified information.

If it is proved that Clinton knowingly sent, received or stored classified information in an unauthorized location, she risks prosecution under the same misdemeanor federal security statute used to prosecute former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, said former federal prosecutor Bradley Simon.

The statute — which was also used to prosecute Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, in 2005 — is rarely used and would be subject to the discretion of the attorney general.

Still, “They didn’t hesitate to charge Gen. Petraeus with doing the same thing, downloading documents that are classified,” Simon said. “The threshold under the statute is not high — they only need to prove there was an unauthorized removal and retention” of classified material, he said.

Clinton’s lawyer in the email probe is longtime Bill Clinton attorney David Kendall, who also repped Petraeus, who pleaded guilty earlier this year to providing classified documents to his mistress biographer.

“My guess is they’re looking to see if there’s been either any breach of that data that’s gone into the wrong hands [in Clinton’s case], through their counter-intelligence group, or they are looking to see if a crime has been committed,” said Makin Delrahim, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the Bush DOJ.

“They’re not in the business of providing advisory security services,” Delrahim said of the FBI. “This is real.”

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Maximus said:

Not that anyone cares...

FBI investigation of Hillary’s emails is ‘criminal probe’
By Jamie Schram, Geoff Earle and Laura Italiano

August 5, 2015 | 7:26pm


Modal Trigger

Hillary ClintonPhoto: WireImage
MORE ON:
HILLARY CLINTON
O'Malley camp blasts DNC for debates 'facilitating' Clinton

Bernie Sanders closes in on Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire

Huma planned party for Clinton pal on taxpayers' dime

FBI investigating security of Hillary's private email server
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured email account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.

The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.

“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.

“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”

Clinton’s camp has downplayed the inquiry as civil and fact-finding in nature. Clinton herself has said she is “confident” that she never knowingly sent or received anything that was classified via her private email account.

But the inspector general for the intelligence community has told Congress that of 40 Clinton emails randomly reviewed as a sample of her correspondence as secretary of state, four contained classified information.

If it is proved that Clinton knowingly sent, received or stored classified information in an unauthorized location, she risks prosecution under the same misdemeanor federal security statute used to prosecute former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, said former federal prosecutor Bradley Simon.

The statute — which was also used to prosecute Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, in 2005 — is rarely used and would be subject to the discretion of the attorney general.

Still, “They didn’t hesitate to charge Gen. Petraeus with doing the same thing, downloading documents that are classified,” Simon said. “The threshold under the statute is not high — they only need to prove there was an unauthorized removal and retention” of classified material, he said.

Clinton’s lawyer in the email probe is longtime Bill Clinton attorney David Kendall, who also repped Petraeus, who pleaded guilty earlier this year to providing classified documents to his mistress biographer.

“My guess is they’re looking to see if there’s been either any breach of that data that’s gone into the wrong hands [in Clinton’s case], through their counter-intelligence group, or they are looking to see if a crime has been committed,” said Makin Delrahim, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the Bush DOJ.

“They’re not in the business of providing advisory security services,” Delrahim said of the FBI. “This is real.”

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Click to expand...

New York Post?

General question to the conservatives on the board.

Why shouldn't we have universal health care if it's more cost effective and saves lives?

Why shouldn't we have completely subsidized college education if it reduces unemployment, dependency, international competitiveness, among the several dozen other life improvements that come with a collegiate education?

Why shouldn't we have a social pension program?

I've never really understood the conservative arguments here against these particular issues. Universal health care would likely be cheaper than the current system. A true social pension program would be preferable to Social Security and such a program has generally had the support of more than 2/3rds of the population.

gourimoko said:

For the shit Nate is getting right now, he's right. You can't describe the student tuition and cost issue without also discussing accessibility and the social need for greater education among the population to keep up with international labor markets, among a myriad of other factors.

Again, simply citing middle school free market economic theory isn't sufficient to make the argument that we should be the only nation in Western Civilization that does not subsidize education. If it were really that simple, why hasn't any other nation come to this same conclusion?

Click to expand...

Yeah, the answer to the student loan problem is not getting the government out of education. This country has to invest in the education of its future labor force, and it should be doing it at a extremely low cost (if not free) to students who need money.

That's not to say that we don't need to reform the verification system to ensure that students are actually using the money for school and not for other shit, but I think it's down right disgusting that are policy as a country is to tell people to educate yourself and then let banks and loan servicers make shit tons of money off of students. And that's not to say that we should make it easy for people to get out of their loan agreement either, as people should have to live up to their responsibilities.

If we can offer cheap money to bail out the banks then why can't we do it to help improve our future workforce in a way that doesn't cripple their ability to get married/buy houses/buy cars/buy etc. that help other parts of the economy and were done by most young people of the previous generations?

spydy13 said:

Yeah, the answer to the student loan problem is not getting the government out of education. This country has to invest in the education of its future labor force, and it should be doing it at a extremely low cost (if not free) to students who need money.

That's not to say that we don't need to reform the verification system to ensure that students are actually using the money for school and not for other shit, but I think it's down right disgusting that are policy as a country is to tell people to educate yourself and then let banks and loan servicers make shit tons of money off of students. And that's not to say that we should make it easy for people to get out of their loan agreement either, as people should have to live up to their responsibilities.

If we can offer cheap money to bail out the banks then why can't we do it to help improve our future workforce in a way that doesn't cripple their ability to get married/buy houses/buy cars/buy etc. that help other parts of the economy and were done by most young people of the previous generations?

Click to expand...

Agreed..

I just can't understand why we can't have fully subsidized higher education. I mean.. why not do this?

Instead of just handing out loan money, students should not have tuition. They can be given stipends, rent vouchers, and student food cards to prevent misuse of funds. But the way the system works now is a joke. Just handing a 19-year old kid $6,000 and saying "okay, be responsible" isn't the way to run a national education program. It's a way to enrich banks through federal loan guarantees while bankrupting the lower class of Americans who can't afford to pay those loans back and are disposed to likely not complete school for socioeconomic reasons.

Secondary and higher education in this country needs a complete overhaul, but again, the justification for the incurred individual cost of college makes no practical sense.