By IWMTB19 Go To PostGovernments subsidizing colleges leads to colleges charging more money since, guess what, colleges look to rip off people too, like everyone else.
I'm not in favor of giving additional money to private entities either. I'm not defending Clinton, I'm a proper Leftist, but we need to agree on the diagnostic, before agreeing on the prescription. College costs in the US are insane. You need to fight off the business model, not accomodate it. The only way education should be profitable is through learning, not financially. It has become a joke even, there's grade inflation, a curriculum that addresses students the way it addresses clients, the money kids need to spend is crippling. The way Clinton talks about the issue is insufficient (and pretty empty-handed) but she's tapping into the sentiment I'm describing, that lots of people feel.
By Fenderputty Go To PostNew Mexico and colorado, while I think NM is pretty solid blue, Colorado is a big swing state. Florida is harder to quantify because of Cubans. Though the younger generation doesn't vote straight R like the older generation.
Lol at us losing with both Hillary or Trump.
Are you one of those both parties are the same people.
Don't forget Virginia, North Carolina, and possibly Arizona. The Latino vote can swing all three of those states.
That's after the dead heat in Ohio and Pennsylvania for either candidate. Trump would have to flip all 6 states (NM included) and most likely one of Colorado/Iowa to have a shot at winning the general election. Inconceivable at this point in time.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostHillary is left enough on feminism, LGBT right, and climate change and right enough on the economy for me to definitely support. She's not my ideal candidate (she likes war and I dislike her idea of "making college free"), but she's good enough and a lot better than Trump, and Jeb! and the other dudes.
Rubio would be okay if he wasn't so against women and wasn't obsessed with war, but those things
It's very possible that the next president will preside over 3 new supreme court justice appointments: Breyer and Ginsburg for sure. Scalia and Kennedy also possibilities.
We can't have another Republican president. We can't.
By Gabyskra Go To PostAre you one of those "two parties are plenty enough" people?
No. But I live in a reality where all we have is a two party system and the parties are most assuredly not the same
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostIt's very possible that the next president will preside over 3 new supreme court justice appointments: Breyer and Ginsburg for sure. Scalia and Kennedy also possibilities.
We can't have another Republican president. We can't.
This is a large reason why I dont give shit which dem makes it out. The only reason gay marriage is legal today is because of this and the only chance citizens United gets repealed would be because of this.
One thing that really bothers me about Hilary is her fuck-awful approach at changing capital gain laws. It's bad enough Obama raised capital gains from 15% to 20%. But Hilary wants to change short term capital gains to be taxed as much as 44%! Are you fucking kidding here? This includes not just bonds and stocks, but also real estate. If she thinks this is a good economic idea, God only knows what else her dumbass has in mind.
Who does low capital gains taxes benefit besides those that already have a ton of money that can bother to re-invest it into the market and cash out whenever-the-fuck? People with 401Ks aren't seeing the benefit of a 15% capital gains tax.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostGovernments subsidizing colleges leads to colleges charging more money since, guess what, colleges look to rip off people too, like everyone else. Subsidizing college is also a massive subsidy to the upper middle class since the poor can't afford the opportunity costs of college regardless of how much the price is. MOOCs bringing down college costs through massively amounts more of competition is a much better idea than the government paying colleges more and colleges ripping off taxpayers more.
Subsidizing college is a subsidy to the well-off so yeah, no.
We need massive increases in land taxes and EITC to help the poor, not to give more money to institutions that have preyed on teenagers through massive price increases for decades.
Eh. Wrong.
http://www.dailycal.org/2014/12/22/history-uc-tuition-since-1868/
There are, of course, the rising costs of salaries and benefits for employees plus costs to install and update technology and to add more amenities like state-of-the art gyms and performance spaces. But that omits a key factor, according to the New York Federal Reserve Bank. A new study by New York Fed economists finds that increases in caps for federal student loans and grants are a key factor for rising tuition.
More specifically, the study found that the increased availability of subsidized student loans and Pell Grants accounted for 55% to 65% of the increase in tuition costs, as measured by their sticker price. The greater availability of unsubsidized loans had a lower 30% pass-through effect.
The study also found that the “subsidized loan effect on tuition is most pronounced for expensive, private institutions that are somewhat but not among the most, selective.” It defines those institutions as having “mid-tier” admissions rates, rank in the top quartile for tuition costs and enroll students who have the highest ability to pay, in other words, expensive private institutions that many middle- and upper-class students attend. No names are mentioned.
The study concludes that “while one would expect a student aid expansion to benefit recipients, the subsidized loan expansion could have been to their detriment, on net, because of the sizable and offsetting tuition effect.” But it also notes that college graduates earn higher wages than others, which suggests it may be worth the cost.
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/07/06/student-aid-may-be-to-blame-for-sky-high-college-t
By AlphaSnacks Go To PostOne thing that really bothers me about Hilary is her fuck-awful approach at changing capital gain laws. It's bad enough Obama raised capital gains from 15% to 20%. But Hilary wants to change short term capital gains to be taxed as much as 44%! Are you fucking kidding here? This includes not just bonds and stocks, but also real estate. If she thinks this is a good economic idea, God only knows what else her dumbass has in mind.
Germany levies a 25% capital gains tax so I don't see the argument against 20 or even 30%. Plus it'd give Yellen an excuse not to raise interest rates. Sounds like a win win.
By reilo Go To PostWho does low capital gains taxes benefit besides those that already have a ton of money that can bother to re-invest it into the market and cash out whenever-the-fuck? People with 401Ks aren't seeing the benefit of a 15% capital gains tax.
I don't have a ton of money. A lot of people I know started small start-ups and sold them within 2 years, they'd be getting crushed with a policy like this. Factor in all of the costs of a start-up, you get this pay day acquisition and you're excited as hell. But you're $20 million purchase ends up being like $7M after taxes. And then you factor in how much you invested to begin with. It starts looking grim. A lot of people with growing start-ups don't even take salary. So this would be penalizing small business growth considerably.
Read this article, there's also a double taxing penalty in a number of instances too.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/25/hillarys-inconceivably-stupid-capital-gains-tax-scheme-kudlow-commentary.html
We need to encourage more people, especially younger, to invest and play the market frequently. Not tell them 'hey, buy and hold on to this stock for 6 years to minimize tax impact'. 6 years to minimize taxes? Come on. Who knows what kind of economic turmoil could happen during those years. It's a bad policy and it's been widely panned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/business/dealbook/clintons-capital-gains-tax-change-misses-the-mark.html?_r=0
Looks like she's backed off a little bit and revised her strategy to only target the top 1% bracket of taxpayers.
But this Times article still pokes tons of holes in her strategy.
Looks like she's backed off a little bit and revised her strategy to only target the top 1% bracket of taxpayers.
But this Times article still pokes tons of holes in her strategy.