White House Gives In On Bush-Era Tax Cuts

Most Americans who arent in poverty can afford college. There are a shitload of loans and grants designed to send people to school. It just takes ambition and hard work for some.

I agree with this. Guess what, we got student loan reform during Obama's watch, so now more money can find it's way to ambitious students.

What about people who have spent, let's say $80,000 to obtain a degree and are now working mediocre jobs just to pay off student loans?

You're telling them, hey go back to school and get this degree. LOL! LOL I say.

/shrug I found work in the hospital field without any prior training, good health care and they pay me to go to school for them. This was just in the past few months.

It's not impossible, but it's not easy either.

I didn't say to go back to school to get a degree if you have one. If you don't have one this is a good opportunity. Also most student loans don't cost $80,000 unless you're going to law school or an Ivy League college.

My father recently went back to school. He now makes 6 figures after 2 years of school. If you have a plan and a market in mind going back to school right now is a great idea.

http://www.anesthesiaassistant.com/

it is never a good idea to look at economy as a whole but to always break it down to a specific situation/circumstance

I was looking at it from a export/import basis and used the upholstery as a example of sort

(I did toss the salary part but that was a question I am not certain of)

So looking at it from the point of view of importing and exporting.

Importing: The cost of doing business for a company that imports diverse material from abroad would go up since its buying power is reduced because of the lower $

Exporting: Company's / Investors from abroad would be pleased to see their buying power increased with a lower US $ and would invest in the market. Purchase more then usual from the American market, etc.



This is keeping in mind that trading laws don't change and that this is a OPEN/Free market

Well trading laws can't change without approval of the WTO. I think you're also missing the fact that if people are buying more and we're being paid less then we're not making that much more money. Unfortunately just looking at one aspect of the economy and not how it affects it as a whole is how you end up with a fked up system.

bleh 4hrs before I need to wake up for work.

Gnite

When I mean people are buying more IM talking about "Other country's"

NOT US citizens. Example a Canadian goes into the US with 1.000$ CAD

But with the devaluated US$ when he does the conversion it turns into 10.000 USD and he would purchase american merchandise


This is where the US would benefit from a reduced dollar (outside investment)

Yeah me too, GN.

Ah I see. I don't think we've ever used that strategy lol. Can't really comment.

then don't live in society you narrow minded imbecile, go live by yourself on an island, be self sustained, and be willing to protect yourself from those that come to harm you yourself, and don't ask for any help, otherwise stop bitching.

Let me get this straight. She is narrowminded by proposing more freedom for people to have choice? I think that's litterally the opposite of being narrowminded.

no what she is proposing is anarchy or somehow a non funded government, sorry but taxes are what you pay for society, you either live with it and pay them, or don't and don't. The amount of tax revenue from the average joe is next to nothing, so people need to stop bitching and suck it up.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, it certainly isn't. And for when it isn't perfect, the government should step in and make regulations to try and make it that way. Regulations to provide industry to American workers and attempt to secure jobs. Regulating minimum wage and forcing companies to buy from domestic corporations if they exist.

Every time you go to Walmart(and various others), you're sending some of your money to China, little back into the American workers(only the service end, since most manufacturing is done through China). Is the corporation to blame for you choosing to buy your product from there? No, people are to blame. They wanted lower costing products and they got it. On one hand, it's economic freedom to be able to make products in China and sell them to consumers. On the other hand, it doesn't invest back into the American system. I don't think it'd be a bad idea for America to exhibit some form of economic isolationism. Have the government make regulations for this, because we all know people are too stupid to just simply stop buying products made from China.

Corporations work as long as there are regulations. Government works as long as it doesn't overstep its bounds and try to control or influence more than it should. Seeing billions of dollars spent on commercials that try to teach kids that weed is bad? Is that necessary? Government should be small, corporations should be primarily domestic, freedom and jobs for everyone.

Actually it appears that Vinv is a marxist/structualist while zandra appears to be a capitalist. Don't be confused that marxism = communism that isn't the case, though the average person today thinks they are the same.

As for you Jet, I don't think Zandra said she was against all taxes. I'm fairly sure she meant that she couldn't see paying more taxes than now because they aren't being used effectively.

Red Scare really did a number on the U.S. lol
That actually fits the way I believe pretty well.
Good one on ya for that. I don't really care to define myself most of the time, but Marxism loosely fits I guess :D
I'm all about comfort, which essentially is the foundation of human desire and it doesn't take billions of dollars in your bank account to be comfortable..lol
But I guess people will disagree with that and rather stick up for #1 most of the time because that's how we were taught how to survive in today's society. But W/E...nothing last forever :D(except for maybe carbon?)

"Win/win" only if this actually happens. Sadly, your vision is idealistic, and not realistic.
Yes, if you had $2,000 more in your wallet, you might hire some contractors and/or buy stuff @ Home Depot, and yes, that could potentially put some people to work and generate some government revenue in sales taxes.
However, "you" and the most wealthy Americans are quite different. The most wealthy Americans (this is a generalization, there are always exceptions) tend to spend dollars on overseas travel and property, on purchasing foreign-made automobiles/boats/aircraft, and frequently shelter their money from US income taxation by using foreign bank accounts and/or "writing it off" as business expenses, personal "gifts", and/or selective charitable donations (for which they likely receive kickback benefits).

The wealthiest Americans don't "create jobs" in America when they are taxed less. It just means they have more discretionary money to spend on luxuries or more interest and dividends monies to live on.

Ending the Bush Tax cuts for Americans that earn greater than $250,000 per year is sound, valid political science. And it will happen ... just apparently not this year.

well last I checked these taxes were in place, they were cut back as a poor bush era policy and are a great amount of our debt iirc something like 200billion/year, also unless she's in the top earning bracket it wouldn't affect her in any way shape or form, and quite frankly how the government spends every last penny isn't her place to say, it's her representative's place to say.

Politicians are there do the work and the will of the people. Government is OF the people, not FOR the people. It is pathetically arrogant to think that government knows best. The people ALWAYS know what is best.

Ok since devaluing the dollar to the Yuan is a little hard to theorize, trust me it is, I'm going to throw out this question.

Who's in favor of putting Zandra and Excelior on a rocket and sending it to the moon?

EDIT: Even Jaerik was like *** that, I'm not an economist, not even going to try. Even economists vastly vary on what would happen.

I would completely agree with that if... it would ever happened. But who's gonna put his money in some risky business, when Wall Street has thousands of good and profitable speculative investments for you, or when you can just buy stock, let hardworking classes create the wealth for you, and then eventually fire them to make even more... umm...

Then yeah, cutting taxes for the richest, why not, but let's force them to put it back into the economy, instead of just making it just fly away in some Tax Heavens... but oh wait... that's against constitution, isn't it ?

But hey, don't worry about them really, what's increasing at a much quicker rate than taxes are CEO's, shareholders and bank owner's pockets... lol

But once again, i theorically agree with you. Theorically only, lol.

I think it's funny that professing freedom is considered to be offensive. I wonder if you desire to have no choices and no rights and no freedoms? Curious that you would have to choose to give up in order to not have them.

Freedom is the inevitable, ultimate, most effective form of society. The greater your liberation the more enjoyable your life will become.
You wish more taxes and more laws and yet those things aren't "real".
Freedom and happiness do not come from laws. Laws have no physical value. Freedom and happiness are NATURAL values that come with the conscience mind and the ability to independently think. Don't constrain your mind by forcing upon yourself such artifical limitations.