We told you so: Entitlement "reform" next on the GOP agenda

It's college tuition.

 

Stop - you're silliness must end. Hilarious.

 

Of course - the illib progs never investigate things which go against their false narratives. Hint - Joint Committee on Taxation.

 

Homework - Joint Committee on Taxation. Come'on man - be intellectually honest and do some investigation that challenges your false narrative.

 

And again the lack of knowledge of history. And it was Bill Clinton who would have reformed Medicare to a voucher system if it were not for a blue dress with stains.

 

The CBO used a closed economy model (not a global system) with very conservative growth assumptions. If a global system is used and more realistic growth assumptions are used their will be a $1T surplus created. All of this is over 10 years. Even if the $1.5T added debt number is used the deficit added is $150B per year. To compensate for that a spending cut of ~ 3% is necessary. That should be no problem.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5665619293001/?playlist_id=930909810001#sp=show-clips

 

Yes. Not just high tuition. And its money one receives from the gov't for tuition that the gov't is going to tax. How stupid is that?

 

Why. You and the repubs are trying to sell this. If you can't, and you haven't, it's understandable.

 

And the intellectual dishonesty continues.

 

Which is covered by the doubling of the standard deduction unless one goes to a school which charges exorbitant and unjustified high tuitions. The problem is the high tuitions charged by schools with billions in their endowment funds.

 

So stop it and prove what you and repubs are saying is true.
Don't expect anyone to do your work for you.

 

So the solution is to tax the money that the tax collector is giving out for tuition? Why not just reduce the amount of tuition money the gov't is giving towards higher education?
Why does the repubs want to punish those who need money to get a higher education, that will lead to higher wage jobs and higher taxes paid by those higher wages in the long run?

 

You know nothing about me, but, your reply reveals a lot about you. Have a nice day.

 

Are you claiming a prediction is a fact?

Who is predicting that 1.5 trillion anyway? Any chance it's the same people who said that we'll never have 3% growth again?

 

I've done my work. Now is the time for you to do yours. What are you afraid of ??

 

It's income. And why don't the D's mount an effort to reduce the cost of a college education ?? Why does Harvard charge ~ $60K per year while Miami of Ohio charges ~ $15K ??

 

Capitalism. Or at least our version of it. What don't we the people mount an effort? "Neither" of thse political parties will, they serve the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class alone.

There’s a common thread tying together the most disruptive revolutions of human history, and it has some scientists worried about the United States. In those revolutions, conflict largely boiled down to pervasive economic inequality. On Wednesday, a study in Nature, showing how and when those first divisions between rich and poor began, suggests not only that history has always repeated itself but also that it’s bound to do so again — and perhaps sooner than we think.

In the largest study of its kind, a team of scientists from Washington State University and 13 other institutions examined the factors leading to economic inequality throughout all of human history and noticed some worrying trends. Using a well-established score of inequality called the Gini coefficient, which gives perfect, egalitarian societies a score of 0 and high-inequality societies a 1, they showed that civilization tends to move toward inequality as some people gain the means to make others relatively poor — and employ it. Coupled with what researchers already know about inequality leading to social instability, the study does not bode well for the state of the world today.

“We could be concerned in the United States, that if Ginis get too high, we could be inviting revolution, or we could be inviting state collapse. There’s only a few things that are going to decrease our Ginis dramatically,” said Tim Kohler, Ph.D., the study’s lead author and a professor of archaeology and evolutionary anthropology in a statement.

Currently, the United States Gini score is around .81, one of the highest in the world, according to the 2016 Allianz Global Wealth Report.
https://www.inverse.com/article/38457-inequality-study-nature-revolution

 

How is that a Democrat problem only? How exactly would Dems do that?

Would Republicans fall in line to solutions that would reduce college costs?

1. It's not
2. They would not
3. Please...tell us

 

The inequality "argument" is absurd. Capitalism has moved the standard of living upward at a higher trajectory than any other economic system. The US has one of the world's highest standard of living and one of the world's highest real median household incomes.

The statement in bold above assumes a zero sum wealth creation process. That's an absurd assumption.

 

It's not a D problem. It's a US national problem. And of course R's would.

 

Sure, please stick with that. I've got time.


https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...ay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/

 

While the rest of the advanced post industrial world invests in their own societies' health and education wise, we prefer to turn students into debt peons to subsidize the aristocracy, that's just who we are.

 

Nothing. I already know it's not a tax decrease for some of the middle class. Everyone who itemizes likely won't have a tax cut.

Why are you afraid to show how this is a tax cut for the poor and middle class. We all know why, it's not.

 

I couldn't be happier. Keep racking up the wins Trump!!!!

 

Since when is it the D's who need to reduce education costs?
They have no power to do anything at present. Why don't the R's cut education costs.
It's income coming from the same gov't that is taxing the income. As I said, why not just reduce the amount of the stipend. Why all the extra paperwork for everyone involved?
One claim is this is to simplify the tax system, not make it more complex. Another lie?
Why does Mercedes charge more than Kia?