Occupy Wall Street

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:23 pm

i think its funny how guys you think putting a morality into economics ever makes the numbers pan out well.

just because its possible to live very well making 2 million a year max, doesnt mean its not even more comfortable making 10 million a year.

lets say he makes 10million a year at 35%.

hes out 350,000 dollars a mil. 3.5million dollars is supposed to be taxed from his 10million dollar income(total income preferred, everything earned not this loophole bs we have now). thats basically the equivalent of you losing 10,000 on an income of 30k. its a massive hit, lucky for him he has the money to eat that hit and still have money to live comfortably. raising his taxes lowers the amount he can save however to reinvest in his business(hiring more, giving raises to current employees, expanding to new business ventures). if this country had not enabled people to save and earn millions or billions of dollars, how would something like the private space sector ever get launched? its a very wealthy person realizing the importance and potential financial gain from investing in that field, who could not have done that if he was being taxed at a 70+ percent rate on his excess income his entire working life from the moment he made over a million a year.

warren buffet and bill gates say they are not being taxed high enough. why arent they sending the federal government what they think they should be being taxed then? notice they didnt complain about not being taxed in the 90s when the tax rates where virtually the same to current rates and if i remember correctly actually lower in some regards.

how is it the government can increase spending every year by leaps and bounds, force itself into segments of the economy it has no business dicking around it while artificially inflating the cost of that market and when it crashes its the sole responsibility of the people who made millions and perhaps billions from it? they wouldnt have had that chance had the federal government stayed the fuck out of the way. school loans are a prime example, same with the housing market. both became inflated and one has already crashed due to overspending on a market that did not have the financial ability to back itself. while inflation has increased 2.5x since 1978, the cost of a college education has increased 10x that. the cost of education should be rising rather similar to inflation. why is this not so? perhaps JUST PERHAPS, its because the government started giving out loans at substantially lower rates than the market was at, and started giving more grants to people. once that happened schools said "well fuck that, now we can make more money doing the exact same fucking thing" and started raising tuition costs at an astounding rate. now a degree that 30 years ago cost 10 thousand to get, cost 30+ thousand to receive and nothing has changed in how the classes are taught next to perhaps the content of the courses. there is no real reason for the cost of education to be jumping like that except for inflation caused by federal involvement.

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:26 pm

and raising the retirement age to 70 is a super idea. except for the fact that by 70 half the population isnt doing very well physically or mentally and cant work anymore.

hell, plenty of people have trouble making it to the 60s.

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:57 pm

Your critique of student loans is fair as is your argument that raising the retirement age would be a hardship. As for social security there are 3 options: 1. Lower benefits, 2. increase taxes, 3. raise the retirement age. I think the 3rd option is the most politically feasible. Opinions can differ on that.

Where I believe you are incorrect is on your understanding of tax policy.

lets say he makes 10million a year at 35%.

First of all almost no one makes 10 Mil in ordinary income (which is what is taxed at 35%) chances are a majority of our fictions example's (lets call him Bob) income comes from capital gains which are taxed currently at 15%. This is why Warren Buffet pays 17% in tax because most of his income comes from capital gains. The tax rates which I suggested would cap ordinary income taxes at 39.6% and bring capital gains back to 25%. No one, at least not me, is advocating for taxes to return to the 1960's, 1970's era tax rates that generated stagflation. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html - This site shows tax rates from every year and you can compare.

hes out 350,000 dollars a mil. 3.5million dollars is supposed to be taxed from his 10million dollar income(total income preferred, everything earned not this loophole bs we have now). thats basically the equivalent of you losing 10,000 on an income of 30k. its a massive hit, lucky for him he has the money to eat that hit and still have money to live comfortably.

Moving on even if Bob did make all $10 million in ordinary income, he will not pay even close to $3.5 million. You have not taken into account any deductions whatsoever. Whether those are charitable contributions, moving expenses, home ownership credits etc. There are zounds of them and any accountant worth their salt can find them and do find them for people who make that kind of money. Moreover it is not equivalent of someone losing $10,000 from a $30,000 income. That is the whole purpose of a progressive taxation system (which has always existed in this country).

raising his taxes lowers the amount he can save however to reinvest in his business(hiring more, giving raises to current employees, expanding to new business ventures). if this country had not enabled people to save and earn millions or billions of dollars, how would something like the private space sector ever get launched?

Lastly this is also incorrect. The IRC (Internal revenue code, not internet relay chat

) is littered with deductions for businesses. Reinvesting in ones business does not create a taxable event. Employing people is an expense and therefore deductible to a business. In fact if you own a business and your business LOSES money you can carry back the loss two years to offset gains in prior years (you can amend your return from the prior year), any excess may be carried forward to offset gains in future periods as well. There are many more benefits available that I could go on and on about. But either way the system is setup so that entrepreneurs have every excuse to be able to deduct almost anything that is used for their business. This is why this job creator rhetoric is complete bullshit, its already subsidized (as it should be). Wealthy people have done fine in era's of much higher taxation. The country can't afford the current rates and should revert back to 1990's tax levels. These taxes are still lower than in the 80's,70's,60's,50's,40's and 30s.

Hope that makes sense and isn't too technical.

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:53 pm

i said get rid of the loophole BS. i dont see a reason to give deductions on tax just because you have a kid, gave to charity or decided to install some solar lighting. i want that 35% tax to be a straight tax on your income period. not what type of income it is. income period.

stop subsidizing these things, and the market will value itself out. prices wont go through the roof, or no one will buy the product.

scorch- · Post by **scorch-** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:29 pm

let's keep taxes where they are and shut down centralized government for 3 years and see where we are with the national debt woooooooooooooooo

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:52 am

gwolf_ wrote:The problem is the democrats are too liberal and the republicans are too conservative. The middle has been lost in the fray.

Here is how I would solve the problems:
1. Put taxes back to the exact same amount they were at in the 1990's while the economy was successful and leave them alone. Businesses need certainty, these rates have worked before and will work again. None of this 9-9-9 shit, we're talking about taxes not a fucking pizza deal.
2. Get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. Raise the retirement age to 70 for anyone 40 and under. (This solves social security liquidity problem)
4. Adjust Security benefit payouts so that wealthy people don't get them. Cap it for people whose estates are $2,000,000+ something like that.

Not rocket science!

Corporate taxes are bunk anyway. The cost is simply internalized to the consumer and there is no material benefit from it. Given how many qualify for tax holidays, exemptions, and other ways of not paying, then it doesn't make too much sense to keep having the tax on them.

How about we put taxes on the wealthy when we were truly the most successful - the 50s and 60s? Seriously, put cash into the system. We need to pay our debts anyway, so, the point has to be discussed.

If you really think the Democratic Party is liberal, then you're out of touch with politics. No, seriously, there isn't a serious ounce of liberal attitude in the leadership. You might have a fringe liberal in the caucus in the Here or There, but the Democratic Party is nothing akin to being liberal. It just isn't crazy like the Republican Party.

Doesn't fix the problems with social security. Social Security has been treated like a slush fund for the discretionary spending of Congress to pay for new tanks, defense contracts, and other machinations. Social Security would be fine today if the fund had not been looted by Congress since the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Expecting people to suddenly work til they're 70 is garbage too. When you get to 55 or 60, tell people who have worked their whole lives they need to work another 10-15 before than can "retire". Not buying it.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:24 pm

scorch- wrote:let's keep taxes where they are and shut down centralized government for 3 years and see where we are with the national debt woooooooooooooooo

Probably akin to what Somalia looks like.

Also, the biggest abusing states for welfare and government spending would suddenly be on the hook for their own problems, i.e. the American South.

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:01 pm

Expecting people to suddenly work til they're 70 is garbage too. When you get to 55 or 60, tell people who have worked their whole lives they need to work another 10-15 before than can "retire". Not buying it.

Okay then. What are you going to do with it then? SS is not sustainable as going concern forever at present. You either have to raise SS taxes or reduce benefits if you don't increase the retirement age. (a combination of all three would be acceptable as well, perhaps retirement 68, ss taxes up 2% benefits removed for wealthy individuals, raise the cap on social security taxes, right now you don't pay into social security beyond $106,000) I've somewhat taken this idea from http://kpcb.com/usainc/ Don't forget that SS was developed decades ago when life expectancy's were much lower.

I agree with you that the democrats are far more moderate than republicans. I should've said their problem is that they're lousy politicians and have no balls more so than they are too liberal. The republicans are whacky though. The only candidate with a brain for the presidency has 1% in the polls (Jon Huntsman)

Doesn't fix the problems with social security. Social Security has been treated like a slush fund for the discretionary spending of Congress to pay for new tanks, defense contracts, and other machinations. Social Security would be fine today if the fund had not been looted by Congress since the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Nope not really. The massive baby boomer generation that was previously paying into social security is about to take out of social security, that is the long term issue. SS was designed to be self sustainable with its own taxes. This is why the federal income tax doesn't contribute to it only the payroll taxes.

Probably akin to what Somalia looks like.

Also, the biggest abusing states for welfare and government spending would suddenly be on the hook for their own problems, i.e. the American South.

yep

How about we put taxes on the wealthy when we were truly the most successful - the 50s and 60s? Seriously, put cash into the system. We need to pay our debts anyway, so, the point has to be discussed.

Taxes don't need to go that high. The funny thing about supply side economics and the Laffer curve (stating that tax revenue goes up as tax rates go down) is it was all developed in the 60's-70's when taxes were very high. These conditions created stagflation in the 70's. The problem with supply side economics is the logic was then applied further in the early 2000's when taxes had already been low in the 90's. Now republicans want to take taxes even lower. Putting them back to pre bush tax cut era levels will do just fine.

Corporate taxes are bunk anyway. The cost is simply internalized to the consumer and there is no material benefit from it. Given how many qualify for tax holidays, exemptions, and other ways of not paying, then it doesn't make too much sense to keep having the tax on them.

Actually the corporate tax code prevents money laundering and all sorts of scams. It would take pages and pages for me to explain all of this but essentially it prevents people from funneling money to and from entities and hiding it from tax with offshore accounts and such. Unless you believe in Ayn Rand fairy tales its not smart. It is complete nonsense that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world. Its true that we have one of the highest rates (35%) but the base of which the tax is calculated is far smaller than other countries due to deductions and exemptions. Also that rate only applies to large corporations. Small businesses don't pay that much. Phasing out some deductions and lowering the rate to 30 or 28 would probably be reasonable.

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:26 pm

i personally wouldnt mind a slight increase in the SS tax, as long as people stop using the SS fund to pay other shit. i also dont think its fair to exempt people who have a nw of 2million or higher, they paid into it same as anyone else. i think they should be allowed to chose if they wish to collect that money, or perhaps donate the yearly amount to a lower tier bracket of SS recipients.

the only tax i really despise in this country is the direct income tax. SS tax should be voluntary, i can imagine most people would still pay into it if we reworked the system to make is sustainable.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:09 pm

Okay then. What are you going to do with it then? SS is not sustainable as going concern forever at present. You either have to raise SS taxes or reduce benefits if you don't increase the retirement age. (a combination of all three would be acceptable as well, perhaps retirement 68, ss taxes up 2% benefits removed for wealthy individuals, raise the cap on social security taxes, right now you don't pay into social security beyond $106,000) I've somewhat taken this idea from http://kpcb.com/usainc/ Don't forget that SS was developed decades ago when life expectancy's were much lower.

You cut discretionary spending and defense budget and refill the pot. SS wasn't never unsustainable until the USFG decided to use it as a free checking account. Man, imagine what you could do with $200 billion a year from the DOD's budget. I'm like 99% sure that'd make SS sustainable.

I agree with you that the democrats are far more moderate than republicans. I should've said their problem is that they're lousy politicians and have no balls more so than they are too liberal. The republicans are whacky though. The only candidate with a brain for the presidency has 1% in the polls (Jon Huntsman)

Huntsman represents corporate interests. He might not be a batshit insane fundamentalist, but he's definitely a problem when it comes to the neo-liberalism slant. He's part of the problem. Social issues are a mask to the real thing - the economy. If you got people to stop going back and forth on such miniscule issues like gay marriage and abortion, then the middle class would get a fucking clue as to the looting and pillaging the mega-wealthy have done to this country.

James Carville said it right, "it's the economy, stupid."

Neo-classical liberalism has a stranglehold on our economics because it makes the rich much richer at the expense of everyone else. People who went to Harvard, Yale, Penn, etc. are all the same children sucking from the same tit.

The one thing "The Inside Job" does is underscore how bankrupt the entire academic to professional system for finance is in the United States. Until the moral turpitude is fixed, we're fucked.

Nope not really. The massive baby boomer generation that was previously paying into social security is about to take out of social security, that is the long term issue. SS was designed to be self sustainable with its own taxes. This is why the federal income tax doesn't contribute to it only the payroll taxes.

No, actually it has been. Even Ron Paul has introduced legislation to stop this kind of shit. It's that bad. SS was never in a liquidity problem until the early 1990s when the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats decided it was a checking account for them to use.

Social Security has paid for everything BUT social security.

Taxes don't need to go that high. The funny thing about supply side economics and the Laffer curve (stating that tax revenue goes up as tax rates go down) is it was all developed in the 60's-70's when taxes were very high. These conditions created stagflation in the 70's. The problem with supply side economics is the logic was then applied further in the early 2000's when taxes had already been low in the 90's. Now republicans want to take taxes even lower. Putting them back to pre bush tax cut era levels will do just fine.

The bigger problems in the 1960s and 1970s was a strangulation on trade and cartels on energy. Taxes had been historically high since the 1930s. If you want to make a case that 60% marginal tax rate was too high, then sure. However, reality seems quite different when you look at it.

The only president the last 30 years who had the balls to say taxes had to be raised was Bush Sr. He got stuck with Reagan's reckless spending and late 1980s Yuppie Burst. The thing he suffered from was a campaign promise - "read my lips" - However, Reagan's supply-side theory is complete bunk. It presumes corporations, not wealthy individuals, will infuse the system with growth. Companies pay more to ALL of their employees, who in turn demand MORE from the economy. Except, the managmeent just reward themselves with bigger money.

The Laffer Curve is one of the most contentious issues in economics OUTSIDE of the United States. European and Asian modeling shows it largely to be complete junk. Even in the States they make alternative theories to "make it work" even though the facts behind it don't add up. In truth, the system adjusts. I don't really worry about our economy if 1% of the population isn't spending. I worry about 99% not spending money.

Actually the corporate tax code prevents money laundering and all sorts of scams. It would take pages and pages for me to explain all of this but essentially it prevents people from funneling money to and from entities and hiding it from tax with offshore accounts and such. Unless you believe in Ayn Rand fairy tales its not smart. It is complete nonsense that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world. Its true that we have one of the highest rates (35%) but the base of which the tax is calculated is far smaller than other countries due to deductions and exemptions. Also that rate only applies to large corporations. Small businesses don't pay that much. Phasing out some deductions and lowering the rate to 30 or 28 would probably be reasonable.

I'm not talking about laundering money. I'm talking about the cost being internalized into the final price. If Wal-Mart pays $X amount of tax on income, they never actually pay that cost. Wal-Mart puts that tax into the prices for the products it sells.

Funny story, Wal Mart is turning in its highest profits ever and yet it is cutting benefits and pay.

The system is broken. Executive pay needs to be reigned in. The fact shareholders and management are largely indistinguishable is a problem in and of itself in the United States. Until that delineation is underscored and clearly marked, we're not going to see an improvement in the system.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:14 pm

Also, the quote system is fucked up. Like, fucked to the max.

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:21 pm

mg_ wrote:Also, the quote system is fucked up. Like, fucked to the max.

It's not, it just limits how many quotes within quotes you can do to three levels deep. It can slow down the site a whole bunch if not.

Also, you forgot to close your first quote tag ([/quote]).

Jb_ · Post by **Jb_** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:30 am

KILL THE JEWS DAMMIT!

CharlieGiteau · Post by **CharlieGiteau** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:44 am

Speaking of SS and all the IOUs...the govt has still failed to pay back what its borrowed from my retirement plan, the Railroad Retirement Board. They've asked to do it again; thankfully, they've refused and rumor has it the govt is trying to find a loophole (surprising huh?) to do it regardless of what the RRB says.

I'm glad I no longer pay into the cluster that is SS.

sevEN · Post by **sevEN** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:35 am

Cliffs?

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:32 am

sevEN wrote:Cliffs?

-Some people support 99%.
-Pawns of 1% (unpro) come to defense of 1%.
-I curse a lot, bring up morality, and get one step closer to Communism.
-Sears shows up and we talk Buddhism. He has agreed to be my Lama.
-Mitch Graham brings up facts relevant to the debate and won (in my biased opinion).

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:28 pm

You cut discretionary spending and defense budget and refill the pot. SS wasn't never unsustainable until the USFG decided to use it as a free checking account. Man, imagine what you could do with $200 billion a year from the DOD's budget. I'm like 99% sure that'd make SS sustainable.

No. The money was not used as a checking account, money was borrowed against it, there is a difference. I agree with you that its a bad idea but that is not the reason there is a liquidity problem with SS itself. That problem affects the government budget as a whole though. I agree with you that cutting the defense budget is a good idea.

Huntsman represents corporate interests. He might not be a batshit insane fundamentalist, but he's definitely a problem when it comes to the neo-liberalism slant. He's part of the problem. Social issues are a mask to the real thing - the economy. If you got people to stop going back and forth on such miniscule issues like gay marriage and abortion, then the middle class would get a fucking clue as to the looting and pillaging the mega-wealthy have done to this country.

All I was saying is he's a smart guy, not that I agree with him or support his ideas. You're right about social issues.

No, actually it has been. Even Ron Paul has introduced legislation to stop this kind of shit. It's that bad. SS was never in a liquidity problem until the early 1990s when the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats decided it was a checking account for them to use.

I still maintain the liquidity issue is due to the baby boomer's. You can easily find your own statistics about this. Now birthrates have gone down so there isn't the same ability to pay it through or as RIck Perry would call it A PONZI SCHEME !@)(&*!$@^& Also people are living longer and therefore taking more money out of social security.

If you want to make a case that 60% marginal tax rate was too high, then sure.

That is what I said

I'm not talking about laundering money. I'm talking about the cost being internalized into the final price. If Wal-Mart pays $X amount of tax on income, they never actually pay that cost. Wal-Mart puts that tax into the prices for the products it sells.

Funny story, Wal Mart is turning in its highest profits ever and yet it is cutting benefits and pay.

The system is broken. Executive pay needs to be reigned in. The fact shareholders and management are largely indistinguishable is a problem in and of itself in the United States. Until that delineation is underscored and clearly marked, we're not going to see an improvement in the system.

You're right about executive pay. Shareholders need more power in the relationship with management. These "interlocking directorates" where CEO of company A sits on the board of Company B and vice versa prevents reforms. You're missing my point about corporate taxation. The current system of corporate taxation exists so that money can't be laundered and to prevent scams, its purpose isn't so much to raise revenue as it is to prevent bad people from doing sneaky things. The alternative is to use the tax structure that is used by S-corporations, LLC's etc. But the problem with this system is that all shareholders need to be American citizens as the tax structure passes through to the individual. When you do this tax is paid on profits not withdrawn from the business and you couldn't collect money from foreign shareholders. If you removed the corporate tax code money would be funneled outside the country and then back in and it would be almost impossible to catch.

For the most part I think we're on the same page here though!

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:38 pm

alex kirk wrote:What was the monastery like? Was that in the US or another country?

Namdroling Montana

Basically, I was on an epic road trip crossing the country back to Oregon from Boston after getting divorced, and saw a bunch of monks in town getting gas for a tractor and was like WTF?? so I asked them WTF?? and then went to visit their place and ended up staying for pretty much an entire summer just for kicks.

Totally crazy life changing experience.

Namdroling is traditional tibetan buddhism, so it's was a bit more elaborate than my zen-dominated practice now. A lot of parallels, just different goals and methods for attaining them. I think zen works better for westerners because it's much more minimilistic and is more culturally relevant to the western world. I would have a really hard time living any kind of western lifestyle if I was truly practicing tibetan buddhism, I don't know how people really pull that off.

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:12 pm

Sears wrote:
alex kirk wrote:What was the monastery like? Was that in the US or another country?
Namdroling Montana

Basically, I was on an epic road trip crossing the country back to Oregon from Boston after getting divorced, and saw a bunch of monks in town getting gas for a tractor and was like WTF?? so I asked them WTF?? and then went to visit their place and ended up staying for pretty much an entire summer just for kicks.

Totally crazy life changing experience.

Namdroling is traditional tibetan buddhism, so it's was a bit more elaborate than my zen-dominated practice now. A lot of parallels, just different goals and methods for attaining them. I think zen works better for westerners because it's much more minimilistic and is more culturally relevant to the western world. I would have a really hard time living any kind of western lifestyle if I was truly practicing tibetan buddhism, I don't know how people really pull that off.

So how did it work? I assume it's not the sort of deal where anyone can just show up and start living there. Do you have to pay to cover costs of rent/food/etc.? Do you work?

Details, bro!

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:36 pm

just because i think a different economic model than the one you want would be better doesnt mean im a pawn of anything.

you guys want to put things in perspective to todays regulations, i want to limit or get rid of regulations when im taking about this issue.

ive explained it 20 fucking times. i dont think the taxes need to be raised if we close all the BS loopholes and stop giving people deductions for spending money.

i think people who make under 15-20k a year should not be required to pay an income tax(i also think the income tax should be abolished)

i agree ss is fucked, and needs to be reworked and stopped being used as a fucking spend all account for the government. i also think it should be voluntary to put money into it.

i dont think its fair to raise taxes on the wealthy to the point where they effectively work for fucking free once they make x amount of money.

i dont think wallstreet is solely responsible for the issues. if anything i think the federal government is MORE responsible for the current issues than anyone else, especially when it comes to things like the housing market, school loans, bail outs that enabled companies that should have failed to continue while making massive profits on terrible business decisions, etc.

corporate lobbying wouldnt be possible if it wasnt for the federal government enabling the behavior and practice. you cant blame one side fully and not blame the other side. especially when one can be considered to be the more accountable side.

i think we need to reduce the size of our government. i would start with the TSA and homeland security.

i dont think we should be spending billions of dollars "helping" other countries when we cant even fix the poverty issues in our own country.

i dont think we have any right to spread our moralities to other countries or cultures simply because we disagree with theres if they have no interest.

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:25 pm

unpro wrote:just because i think a different economic model than the one you want would be better doesnt mean im a pawn of anything.

While Alex is being inflammatory with his comment, that doesn't mean it isn't true. You've repeated yourself over and over again, so it's pretty clear where your thoughts on the matter are. It's also pretty clear from and outside observer that those views align themselves with a world-view that would benefit the elite 1%, where as you have clearly stated that you are not an elite 1%er. So, I can see how one my draw the "pawn" conclusion, however inflammatory.

ive explained it 20 fucking times. i dont think the taxes need to be raised if we close all the BS loopholes and stop giving people deductions for spending money.

Example of the previous. While I understand that you've been convinced that this is the silver-bullet issue to fix all of our problems. This is factually untrue, as Mitch's has attempted to explain to you.

i think people who make under 15-20k a year should not be required to pay an income tax(i also think the income tax should be abolished)

i agree ss is fucked, and needs to be reworked and stopped being used as a fucking spend all account for the government. i also think it should be voluntary to put money into it.

i dont think its fair to raise taxes on the wealthy to the point where they effectively work for fucking free once they make x amount of money.

For someone in most states making minimum wage (about 17,000 a year) will end up paying about 18-20% in income tax (state + federal). However, most people at this income level in most states are eligible for many tax breaks to reduce this amount due to their low income. I agree with you that those making minimum wage should pay very little, if any income tax (as has everyone else in this thread). But, abolishing the income tax completely, as others have tried to explain to you in this thread is a policy that would do nothing but benefit the 1% elite exponentially.

From what I gather from your previous posts, is that you have developed a strong emotionally charged negative opinion of social services that we use income taxes to pay for (like SS). This firmly held belief appears to prevent you from reaching any kind of middle ground with someone like mitch, who is offering a more objective, fact based argument on the contrary.

In these three statements you are making claims that would directly benefit the elite 1%, yet don't account for factually based counter-arguments that others have made.

I really appretiate you bringing your idead to the discussion, even if it's just on 1911 (lolz!), but as I've tried to point out to you before, all of your arguments are greatly weakened in contrast to others (like mitch), because they come from an ego-driven, emotive place.

i dont think wallstreet is solely responsible for the issues. if anything i think the federal government is MORE responsible for the current issues than anyone else, especially when it comes to things like the housing market, school loans, bail outs that enabled companies that should have failed to continue while making massive profits on terrible business decisions, etc.

corporate lobbying wouldnt be possible if it wasnt for the federal government enabling the behavior and practice. you cant blame one side fully and not blame the other side. especially when one can be considered to be the more accountable side.

See previous. With this claim you are attempting to divert blame from "wall-street" to the "federal government". What distinguishes the two entities? Who influences those two entities? Are they mutually exclusive?

First you attack the "federal government" for causing problems, while specifically giving "wall-street" a pass, and now

i think we need to reduce the size of our government. i would start with the TSA and homeland security.

Ok... Why? Support your thesis. Give us something that ties this in to whatever the fuck else you are saying.

i dont think we should be spending billions of dollars "helping" other countries when we cant even fix the poverty issues in our own country.

By "helping" others do you mean humanitarian based foreign aid?, or do you mean fighting wars? Not since the Jimmy Carter era has foreign aid represented more than 0.8% of our spending per year.

I totally agree with you that we need a fundamental change in how we approach the allocation of resources and the tactics we use to combat poverty in this country. If this is a strong view for you, then why do you argue so passionately a world-view that is totally counter-intuitive to this ideology?

i dont think we have any right to spread our moralities to other countries or cultures simply because we disagree with theres if they have no interest.

Ok, you are anti team america policing the world to spread western culture and democracy, but you are for economic policy that is directly in support of this? How does that work.

This is a been a really entertaining thread, and I appreciate you continuing to contribute, but while Alex's cliff notes did take the opportunity to take a jab at you for being a "pawn". It's still a pretty reasonable conclusion giving how you have argued throughout the thread, and if you wish to argue in counter of that, you are going to be much better served hitting the library and going to the facts that might be able to help support some of your arguments (see mitch's posts).

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:38 pm

alex kirk wrote:So how did it work? I assume it's not the sort of deal where anyone can just show up and start living there. Do you have to pay to cover costs of rent/food/etc.? Do you work?

Details, bro!

Haha, I was just a totally random person that showed up, decided to stay for the night after being invited, and somehow ende up spending 3 months immersing myself into monastic life. I paid for my living expenses just how every other monk does, by doing all the same chores they do. It's a really crazy trip to live that kind of lifestyle and would need an entire forum/thread dedicated to it if you want the full story, bro!

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:52 pm

Sears wrote:Haha, I was just a totally random person that showed up, decided to stay for the night after being invited, and somehow ended up spending 3 months immersing myself into monastic life. I paid for my living expenses just how every other monk does, by doing all the same chores they do. It's a really crazy trip to live that kind of lifestyle and would need an entire forum/thread dedicated to it if you want the full story, bro!

Make it. Or PM me info. I'd love to learn more, and would totally be down to do something like that for a summer.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:29 am

No. The money was not used as a checking account, money was borrowed against it, there is a difference. I agree with you that its a bad idea but that is not the reason there is a liquidity problem with SS itself. That problem affects the government budget as a whole though. I agree with you that cutting the defense budget is a good idea.

This is patently not true. Money wasn't borrowed against it. the FICA tax inflows were greater than the outflows, and adequately compensated for inflation, both in Medicare and Social Security. In 1994, during the Republican Revolution, the Republican congress decided it made far more sense to suddenly use this money and continuously cut taxes. It became a checking account.

Money was never borrowed against it as the law never had statutory language specifically requiring Congress to use FICA for its designed use. So long as the inflows AND the current trust are greater than nil, the Social Security Administration can request the Treasury to borrow money to compensate any short falls, which is what it does now.

FICA pays for discretionary spending, not as borrowed against collateral, but the money is directly siphoned off elsewhere.

All I was saying is he's a smart guy, not that I agree with him or support his ideas. You're right about social issues.

He is better than most, even across the Democratic side too. The problem is, he fits the same mold. At some point the problem is systemic and you have to fix it.

I still maintain the liquidity issue is due to the baby boomer's. You can easily find your own statistics about this. Now birthrates have gone down so there isn't the same ability to pay it through or as RIck Perry would call it A PONZI SCHEME !@)(&*!$@^& Also people are living longer and therefore taking more money out of social security.

FICA, for 50+ years had greater inflows than outflows. Something changed in the 1990s in how Congress approached it. I do agree generally with a lot of the fixes you've mentioned. People who have estates valued at a certain amount (I'd probably say $500,000 since I'd include 1 residential property), increasing FICA. I also think we should abolish Medicare Part D, the single biggest garbage giveaway to HMOs and Medical Insurance companies. It really makes anything before or since look paltry in waste. Why not pay HMOs and Health Insurers 125% reimbursement costs for the same program the U.S. Federal Government is doing for less?

The thing that Obama's Medical Insurance reform did right was just what you're talking about. It has, so far, brought in something like 1 million new payers into the health insurance coverage, the people who should be working (lol separate issue) to help defer the costs up top.

That is what I said

I don't, especially because at the end of the day, these people are largely bilking millions out of a living wage. The demand for government services will quietly subside if people are better able to make their own ends meet. If Wal-Mart wasn't paying $7.25 minimum wage to its full time employees, then many of these people would need food stamps, medicaid, and a litany of other government services. That, to me, is the essence of re-adjusting this picture.

If hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth are going to the people actually generating it, then that isn't wealth redistribution. That's getting paid for an honest day's work. In turn, this will drive the economy, and it will be real and substantial. The U.S. does have the ability to move beyond a heavy-industry based economy. I would like it if we did more, sure. But I think the advances in technology, information services, and actual healthcare will be what drives us.

I can think of a million things I'd rather be doing with money the government takes in. Billions developing the lead on 3rd generation energy technology, space exploration, etc. Yeah, it's a novelty in some respects, but billions spent on defense is a waste. Friedrich Hayek is right about that - war strictly destroys and consumes. It is waste. It doesn't create.

You're right about executive pay. Shareholders need more power in the relationship with management. These "interlocking directorates" where CEO of company A sits on the board of Company B and vice versa prevents reforms. You're missing my point about corporate taxation. The current system of corporate taxation exists so that money can't be laundered and to prevent scams, its purpose isn't so much to raise revenue as it is to prevent bad people from doing sneaky things. The alternative is to use the tax structure that is used by S-corporations, LLC's etc. But the problem with this system is that all shareholders need to be American citizens as the tax structure passes through to the individual. When you do this tax is paid on profits not withdrawn from the business and you couldn't collect money from foreign shareholders. If you removed the corporate tax code money would be funneled outside the country and then back in and it would be almost impossible to catch.

For the most part I think we're on the same page here though!

Indeed. On a side note, lol @ Bank Suisse and the other big Swiss banks for turning over tax evaders this week.

scorch- · Post by **scorch-** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:27 am

This one time I had a debate on the topic of gun control on gotfrag. Just sayin'.

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:35 pm

Speaking of Hayek:

[youtube]d0nERTFo-Sk[/youtube]

I tend to be liberal but this is what I have to say about gun control:

RoNiX · Post by **RoNiX** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:49 am

let's give it up for the peaceful protesters of oakland that started a 15 foot fire in the streets prompting police to be called in wearing riot gear. well played peace-loving protesters, well played.

i also loved to read that while the police were only called in after the fire (and some damage to property had been done) that some of the peaceful protesters had gas masks ready to go.

scorch- · Post by **scorch-** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:25 am

gwolf_ wrote:I tend to be liberal but this is what I have to say about gun control:

I'm trying to interpret that photograph but all I can think is that if the garand has 2.0 recoil RL then you should definitely be proned.

RoNiX · Post by **RoNiX** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:29 am

in mother russia, bear hunts you!

james- · Post by **james-** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:45 pm

nevermind, not getting into a gun control war.

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:32 pm

scorch- wrote:I'm trying to interpret that photograph but all I can think is that if the garand has 2.0 recoil RL then you should definitely be proned.

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:48 pm

gwolf_ wrote:
scorch- wrote: I'm trying to interpret that photograph but all I can think is that if the garand has 2.0 recoil RL then you should definitely be proned.
Yea. The gun has an incredible amount of recoil. When I was actually shooting it I was prone. When you shoot it and feel the power in it you wonder how anyone could still have 10 health after getting hit with that thing.

The whole experience was very cool. One of my classmates was an Iraq war veteran and invited a bunch of us to come out shooting. At the time we were in school @ WSU which is in bum fuck SE Washington about 5 hours from Seattle. We drove about 45 minutes east into the most rural town you could possibly imagine, Helmer, Idaho. There was one store in the town. It was a gas station, cafe and convenience store all in one. Before going out to the make-shift shooting range, we decided to stop in and grab a bite to eat.

Now to give you an idea of our group, it consisted of 2 international student from India, 1 Sri Lankan American, 2 urbanites from Seattle and our Iraq war veteran who was originally from Oklahoma (he fit right in).

We walk in to order some sandwiches and everyone just stares at us. We then try to pay with a credit card and they looked at it like it was something from outer space. Fortunately we had enough cash to cover everything. We then proceeded down a long dirt road to a giant pit that was littered with empty shell casings (I guess the University of Idaho and Washington State gun clubs go there to shoot). We got some basic training from our veteran friend and then pumped the side of the hill with lead for the next hour or two shooting at targets (this was the weekend after April 15[tax day] and being that we were masters of accounting students we decided to shoot at tax forms). Then a forest ranger showed up to see what all the racket was, we thought we were in trouble. Actually he just wanted to see what we were shooting. After briefly admiring the guns he drove off.

'Merica!

RoNiX wrote:in mother russia, bear hunts you!

Hi Gary!

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:50 pm

Do you know what the rest of the world sees when they see the "99%" in the United States? The 1%. THEY are the 99%. AMERICANS ARE THE 1%. If I have to hear one more American complain that this is a "third world country" while they're sitting their ass on a computer with electricity...They have absolutely ZERO clue.

Oh, 99% you got a degree in history or liberal arts? You didn't find a job? No shit. Would you hire a history major and pay them $50,000 if you were running a business? What value do they bring? Oh, you poured $100,000+ into a hole for your unemployable undergraduate degree? Well, why don't you go to grad school and pour $50,000 more....to still be unemployable. That sounds intelligent. Then, you can riot and complain. Because you know, if there's one thing a hiring manager likes, it's that.

Sure things are tough, but life if tough. Compete. Get better. Why the hell do people who are middle of the road or border line unemployable think they are owed something? If you were planning your wedding or picking a school for your daughter, you would pick the best. Not 45th best wedding planner. So why should a company hire you if you're not the best. COMPETE. The NFL doesn't let any asshole in just because he wants to play football. You have to prove you deserve to be there.

Do you want to know why I think I'll always have good job prospects? The United States is full of people without work ethic. They don't have a clue what real dedication is. None. They have zero professionalism, class, or communication skills.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:59 pm

Oh, and all the people against "helping Wall Street expense of the common man" need to get a clue. Strengthening those companies balance sheets will eventually lead to hiring. IE when the 500 largest companies are strong, it starts up the engine. Boosting the stock market will boost wealth of pension funds and normal people, which will lead to baby boomers finally being able to retire (or die)...which will be a tremendous boost in hiring for the waiting young people.

And if there's one person to blame for this current cluster other than Greenspan, it's the American Public. You rode the bubble of all bubbles. Building houses for no reason, which lead to more jobs making wood, installing windows, you name it. Then that's extra money to eat out. To use tourism. To do anything. You lived like irrational kings just like the roaring 20's, and it bit you in the ass. Once the housing market went, POOF, it was all an illusion.

Do you know why the taxpayers had to bail the banks out? Because the TAXPAYERS brought down our financial system by living beyond their means for DECADES. The bill came due on their party. The most long lasting and irrational party in the history of mankind.

The banks and time are the one and only thing that can get us out of this mess. You won't like the alternative.

We often hear the phrase, "Saved by WWII" when talking about the Great Depression and the 1930s. Back then, the world was in disarray, based on economic constraints rooted in WWI reparations, the expansion and bursting of the stock market, and worldwide abject poverty.

Saved by a war that cost 60 million lives? What was the option? The starvation of the poorest had begun in Eastern Europe, and revolution was in the air in the United States. No one can contemplate the extent of the disaster that is coming now, since we don't conceptualize WWII as being caused by economics.

Perhaps it's time to promote this explanation, so it would be clearer just what kind of a precipice we are now looking over.

Oh, and corporations are (DOUBLE) taxed. At higher rates than most of the world. If I have to hear one more moron say that "I pay more taxes than GE LULZ", my head might explode.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:19 pm

CharlieGiteau wrote:Since we're talking numbers...

Compensation is partially based on revenue. American corporations practically dominate the global 500. Of course our CEO's will have higher compensation levels. They generate higher revenue and are MUCH larger companies.

That graph is useless for any purpose other than to generate false mindless anger.

Speaking of mindless anger. The 99% think Congress should lose their benefits and good pay. People in Congress are lawyers. Laywers who are basically champions of their feild.

You think they should have the same compensation packages as joe blow? Why????

To any idiot who thinks someone elses job is easy and not what it's worth, then they need to go take it. If it's so easy, they should be able to swoop into it. Oh, they're too busy working at Wal-mart complaining that someone who managed to COMPETE well enough to get to Congress is overpaid.

mogers wrote:

Best post in the thread. It really helps to show what a joke the "99%" is.

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:24 pm

Please, don't feed the troll.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:25 pm

alex kirk wrote:Please, don't feed the troll.

I really hope you're not referring to me as a troll. Every word of what I said is true.

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:30 pm

BrentMusburger wrote:I really hope you're not referring to me as a troll. Every word of what I said is true.

I hope you had fun typing out that diatribe which is relevant only to a specific sub-group within the movement, but not the movement as a whole.

I am for this movement. I'm not demanding a handout. But what I am demanding is the abrupt end of corporate/federal corruption, ending the monetary incentives that the private industry provides to public officials to act/vote a certain way, ending the government's favoritism to those companies who will right them the biggest check, that those who allegedly broke the law which contributed to the economic meltdown be investigated, etc.

I guess I'm an idiot. And I hate freedom.

I think I posted this earlier, but this is the most relevant video I've seen that embodies this movement:

[youtube]H8svbm4WYmU[/youtube]

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:38 pm

ending the government's favoritism to those companies who will right them the biggest check

Let's not pretend this is limited to the big bad corporations. Mkay?

Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

The jig is almost up.

that those who allegedly broke the law which contributed to the economic meltdown be investigated

What about the millions and millions of independent decisions to live well beyond your means for decades? Living beyond your means eventually FORCES you to live under them. Blaming a few people in government or banking for this catastrophy that has happened (and in my opinion is about to get MUCH worse) is bordering on absurd.

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:40 pm

BrentMusburger wrote:
ending the government's favoritism to those companies who will right them the biggest check
Let's not pretend this is limited to the big bad corporations. Mkay?

Did I pretend such?

Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

What about the millions and millions of independent decisions to live well beyond your means for decades? Living beyond your means eventually FORCES you to live under them. Blaming a few people in government or banking for this catastrophy that has happened (and in my opinion is about to get MUCH worse) is bordering on absurd.

I didn't realize I don't assign any blame to irresponsible individuals.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:49 pm

alex kirk wrote:
BrentMusburger wrote:
ending the government's favoritism to those companies who will right them the biggest check
Let's not pretend this is limited to the big bad corporations. Mkay?
Did I pretend such?

Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

What about the millions and millions of independent decisions to live well beyond your means for decades? Living beyond your means eventually FORCES you to live under them. Blaming a few people in government or banking for this catastrophy that has happened (and in my opinion is about to get MUCH worse) is bordering on absurd.
I didn't realize I don't assign any blame to irresponsible individuals.

I just think the entire blame government and blame bankers idea is pathetic. People need to look in the god damned mirror.

I'll put it as blunt as possible. I think many in the movement aren't successful because of their attitude in life. Period.

If you're the best, prove it. How many great football players who are elite athletes are sitting around not being given a chance? The best rise to the top. Blaming others for where you aren't or can't get to gets tiring.

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:53 pm

BrentMusburger wrote:I just think the entire blame government and blame bankers idea is pathetic. People need to look in the god damned mirror.

I'll put it as blunt as possible. I think many in the movement aren't successful because of their attitude in life. Period.

If you're the best, prove it. How many great football players who are elite athletes are sitting around not being given a chance? The best rise to the top. Blaming others for where you aren't or can't get to gets tiring.

I don't want to erase someone's debt because he/she can't find a job for picking a major that isn't marketable. At the same time, I don't think someone should be financially hindered forever because he/she majored in history.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:59 pm

At the same time, I don't think someone should be financially hindered forever because he/she majored in history.

When you're in college, you're an adult. College above all, teaches you how to think, learn, and research. You're responsible for your decision. Perhaps these "highly" educated folks aren't as educated as they think. I can see why they "demand" a refund.

If it's financial reward they seek, then go after engineering or other professional feilds. There's no illusion of financial windfalls before or during an history or art program. It's only after, once the full gravity of their actions becomes apparent, that they want out.

Well, that's too bad. You signed a contract on those loans. And if you know anything about the loans, they have you by the balls with similar powers as the IRS. As they should. Otherwise, I could become an engineer and default. Guess what? I still have the skills of an engineer and boosted my earning potential.

It's like if I go into a casino. I'm risking large amounts of my cash. While I'm still playing, everything is great. Hey, I might even win big. Well, eventually I lose it all. I demand my money back because I'm burdened financially from my poor decisions. This negative outcome is unfair. Bullshit. There were no illusions. I knew the whole time (and if I didn't it's because I'm naive or incapable of performing research at any point during my FOUR YEARS) the risks of the game I was playing. When it didn't work out great, suddenly I "deserve" to get off scott free.

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:03 pm

BrentMusburger wrote:When you're in college, you're an adult. College above all, teaches you how to think, learn, and research. You're responsible for your decision. Perhaps these "highly" educated folks aren't as educated as they think. I can see why they "demand" a refund.

If it's financial reward they seek, then go after engineering or other professional feilds. There's no illusion of financial windfalls before or during an history or art program. It's only after, once the full gravity of their actions becomes apparent, that they want out.

Well, that's too bad. You signed a contract on those loans. And if you know anything about the loans, they have you by the balls with similar powers as the IRS. As they should. Otherwise, I could become an engineering and default. Guess what? I still have the skills of an engineer and boosted my earning potential.

Again, I'm not suggesting a refund. And you think you're truly an adult at 17-18 when you're making the decision to go to school? In the way you are describing them.

Simply saying our system shouldn't force someone who pursues a degree in what they love to be in debt for 50 years. That's the sign of a shitty system.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:07 pm

That's the sign of a shitty system.

Who was holding the gun to their head semester after semester when you had to sign off on the loan payments?

And you think you're truly an adult at 17-18 when you're making the decision to go to school? In the way you are describing them.

Age is just a number. There's people who are 30 who aren't "adults". There's people who are 18 that are. If people can have the responsibility to fight and die in war or vote for the president, than they can be responsible for their financial decisions.

Again, the evidence is stacked up miles high well before they start their program. If they refuse to see it, or research it, well....that's life. You're going to have to deal with the reprecussions.

And if you're going to say that they're still kids, then maybe their coddling parents need to grab little Billy by the ear and say "how many people do you know who work in art or history?".

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:22 pm

Simply saying our system shouldn't force someone who pursues a degree in what they love to be in debt for 50 years.

So what the hell do you want?

First of all, the system forces no one to do anything.

Second of all, college is a large expense. If you don't look at it as an investment and choose something that will pay off as such, then I'm not sure what outcome we should expect?

Should little Billy, who is apparently incapable of research or critical thinking, (why is he in college again?) be able to just live off the State and have his fun studying art....just because he wants to? Well gee, it's that just great! What a magical fun fantasy world. Somewhere in here I'd throw out a cold "grow up and get in reality".

If it's money he seeks, seek a professional feild. If it's love and fun....well either be in a position where you don't need to make your investment pay off....or deal with the negative results of YOUR choices.

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:32 pm

didnt i address this earlier and actually get agreement from at least 1 other person on this thread regarding school costs?

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:34 pm

Just out of curiosity Brent Musburger what do you do?

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:36 pm

Can't talk to someone who believes the world is that simple.

You're implying a fucking kid, someone who is 17-18, is capable of fully understanding the implications of his/her actions when he/she goes to college and has loans. I agree said kid should take responsibility for his/her decisions, but does taking responsibility for those actions mean being stuck in debt for LIFE? That's fucking stupid. Let's actively discourage the pursuit of knowledge. STRONG ideal there.

What the hell does that tell you about our society? Education should be affordable to EVERYONE. Don't justify your views with how things are; I'm telling you how they should be. So the whole move of shrugging and saying, "that's the way it is!" doesn't really apply.

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:43 pm

alex kirk wrote:Can't talk to someone who believes the world is that simple.

You're implying a fucking kid, someone who is 17-18, is capable of fully understanding the implications of his/her actions when he/she goes to college and has loans. I agree said kid should take responsibility for his/her decisions, but does taking responsibility for those actions mean being stuck in debt for LIFE? That's fucking stupid. Let's actively discourage the pursuit of knowledge. STRONG ideal there.

What the hell does that tell you about our society? Education should be affordable to EVERYONE. Don't justify your views with how things are; I'm telling you how they should be. So the whole move of shrugging and saying, "that's the way it is!" doesn't really apply.

The kid is not, the parents should help the kid. A lot of what Musburger is saying is true its just things that we don't want to hear. I was lucky to be the youngest in my family. I saw my brother go to college, graduate phi beta kappa with a liberal arts degree and not be able to find a job other than working front desk at a hotel. He then went to law school..

When I started college I began as a liberal arts major but quickly started to realize it wasn't going to get me a job when i graduated. I then changed my major to accounting and went on to get a masters in it as well. I graduated in July and almost everyone who graduated from my class has a job or is signed up for a job(I don't start until January so I get to play DOD A LOT while I take my cpa exams LOL)

On the same token I have many friends who majored in liberal arts who are just as smart as I am if not smarter, and just as good of work ethics if not better struggling to find work. Its shitty out there, you gotta protect yourself.