Here we go again, SS and Medicare going Bankrupt but not welfare?

[The Derp]

Has anyone checked the cost of college grants verses the cost of social programs like SS?

College grants would be unnecessary if states hadn't cut taxes that create budget deficits, which are closed by cutting things like education. So take Kansas, for example...they cut taxes in 2012, the result was a massive drop in revenue that created budget deficits. Because Kansas has a BBA, the deficits have to be closed each fiscal year. To close those deficits that come from tax cuts, Kansas cut funding to state colleges. Those funding cuts resulted in state colleges having to raise tuition, which forced students and their families to take out loans. None of that would have happened if they hadn't cut taxes.

We were promised that tax cuts would "pay for themselves". When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives said tax cuts "need time to work". When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives said tax cuts coupled with spending cuts would work (thus undermining their first argument that tax cuts pay for themselves). When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives moved the goalposts yet again to a philosophical argument about "keeping more of what you earn". When that turned out to be a crock of shit (household debt immediately after tax cuts skyrocketed), Conservatives made an emotional argument, which is where they are now...emotional and hysterical.

 

[RodISHI]

Has anyone checked the cost of college grants verses the cost of social programs like SS?

College grants would be unnecessary if states hadn't cut taxes that create budget deficits, which are closed by cutting things like education. So take Kansas, for example...they cut taxes in 2012, the result was a massive drop in revenue that created budget deficits. Because Kansas has a BBA, the deficits have to be closed each fiscal year. To close those deficits that come from tax cuts, Kansas cut funding to state colleges. Those funding cuts resulted in state colleges having to raise tuition, which forced students and their families to take out loans. None of that would have happened if they hadn't cut taxes.

We were promised that tax cuts would "pay for themselves". When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives said tax cuts "need time to work". When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives said tax cuts coupled with spending cuts would work (thus undermining their first argument that tax cuts pay for themselves). When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives moved the goalposts yet again to a philosophical argument about "keeping more of what you earn". When that turned out to be a crock of shit (household debt immediately after tax cuts skyrocketed), Conservatives made an emotional argument, which is where they are now...emotional and hysterical.

The whole college system needs a revamp. I doubt it will happen overnight.

 

[The Derp]

The whole college system needs a revamp. I doubt it will happen overnight.

I don't think it needs to be revamped. All it needs is to be well-funded. So much so that no one should have to go into debt to get a degree from a state college. It makes little sense to force students to take out loans to get an education. Doing so results in those students delaying things like marriage, children, buying a home, etc. because of the debt burden from going to school.

IMO, we should tax Wall Street transactions at 1%. Doing so would result in the $85B a year needed to make all Public Colleges free. Doing so would also not dissuade Wall Street from making those transactions, just like taxing gambling winnings in Vegas didn't stop people from going there to gamble.

 

[RodISHI]

The whole college system needs a revamp. I doubt it will happen overnight.

I don't think it needs to be revamped. All it needs is to be well-funded. So much so that no one should have to go into debt to get a degree from a state college. It makes little sense to force students to take out loans to get an education. Doing so results in those students delaying things like marriage, children, buying a home, etc. because of the debt burden from going to school.

IMO, we should tax Wall Street transactions at 1%. Doing so would result in the $85B a year needed to make all Public Colleges free. Doing so would also not dissuade Wall Street from making those transactions, just like taxing gambling winnings in Vegas didn't stop people from going there to gamble.

If children haven't learned the basics by the time they get to college age they shouldn't be there. Degreed idiots with no common sense are not economically feasible.

 

[The Derp]

f children haven't learned the basics by the time they get to college age they shouldn't be there. Degreed idiots with no common sense are not economically feasible.

So, part of what people take away from college are critical thinking skills. You aren't taught these skills in grade school or high school simply because students brains are not developed enough. That's just science. Secondly, a 4-year degree -regardless of major- all but guarantees employment with a decent wage.

So when you look at that chart, what do you see? I see full employment for people with 4-year degrees. I also see wages nearly double those of just HS diplomas, and nearly 50% more than those with associate degrees. So what conclusion can you draw from that? The more educated you are, the easier it is for you to find a job and the more that job pays.

 

[RodISHI]

So when you look at that chart, what do you see?

That you have a chart you have either found or made to try to back up your theory.

 

[The Derp]

That you have a chart you have either found or made to try to back up your theory.

I got the chart directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here.

So setting aside the "wisdom" from those on the right who seem to think college degrees do nothing to help employment and wages, what support is there for the position that a 4-year degree doesn't lead to better job opportunities and higher pay? Please note that "feelings" or "personal anecdotes" are not proof of anything.

 

[The Derp]

That you have a chart you have either found or made to try to back up your theory.

It's not a theory when you can prove it with facts. Furthermore, why would anyone encourage people to not go to college? Simple; the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to buy into Conservative bullshit.

Education is antithetical to Conservatism. That's why so many Conservatives don't value higher education; educated people are not as easily fooled.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Certain non-four year degree programs (RN, HVAC, etc) pay very well.

Most do not pay as well as four year programs, and we all recognize that.

So twirl on a pole or flip burgers.

 

[The Derp]

Certain non-four year degree programs (RN, HVAC, etc) pay very well.
Most do not pay as well as four year programs, and we all recognize that.
So twirl on a pole or flip burgers.

Yup. There are exceptions to be sure, but generally speaking a 4-year degree puts a person in a better position to be hired than not having a degree, and the unemployment rates by education level bear that out.

 

[RodISHI]

That you have a chart you have either found or made to try to back up your theory.

I got the chart directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here.

So setting aside the "wisdom" from those on the right who seem to think college degrees do nothing to help employment and wages, what support is there for the position that a 4-year degree doesn't lead to better job opportunities and higher pay? Please note that "feelings" or "personal anecdotes" are not proof of anything.

Sorry I've seen a bit too much of your 'colleges' and the people that spent those loans they would spend years being unable to pay because they could get jobs to buy your theories. Education is great but not everyone is capable or necessarily proficient at what they studied even if they have a degree showing that they did the time at a college. The end results are in the pudding of lowering the standards at the colleges for college level entries. The colleges turned into a bunch of whores with money grubbing and sexually perverted whores (male and female ones) literally running them.

 

[The Derp]

Sorry I've seen a bit too much of your 'colleges' and the people that spent those loans they would spend years being unable to pay because they could get jobs to buy your theories.

What did I just say? Personal anecdotes are not proof of anything. If you cannot make an argument using facts, and instead you have to rely on third-hand accounts of things, or your own "personal experience" (LOL!), then ya got nothing.

The facts show the more educated you are, the easier it is to find a job and the more that job will pay. So what is driving the anti-college rhetoric on the right? Simple; the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to believe in Conservative bullshit.

So that's why the right-wing attacks education. Less educated people are easier to fool with emotional schemes like trickle-down.

 

[The Derp]

Education is great but not everyone is capable or necessarily proficient at what they studied even if they have a degree showing that they did the time at a college.

It doesn't fucking matter. Merely having a 4-year degree all but guarantees employment, and the wages are higher for people with a college degree than without.

So the facts do not support your argument at all. Which begs the question; what is the real reason you are so anti-education? The answer is obvious; the less educated someone is, the more likely they are to buy into Conservative bullshit.

The end results are in the pudding of lowering the standards at the colleges for college level entries. The colleges turned into a bunch of whores with money grubbing and sexually perverted whores (male and female ones) literally running them.

Bullshit. The unemployment rate for 4-year college grads is 2.7%. That is full employment; meaning you are pretty much gauranteed a job if you have a four year degree. Also, wages for people with degrees are nearly double that for people without degrees, and nearly 50% higher than those with 2-year degrees. So what fucking argument are you trying to make? Less education = lower wages, less opportunity. That's what the BLS figures show. Why are you refusing to accept them?

 

[RodISHI]

Education is great but not everyone is capable or necessarily proficient at what they studied even if they have a degree showing that they did the time at a college.

It doesn't fucking matter. Merely having a 4-year degree all but guarantees employment, and the wages are higher for people with a college degree than without.

So the facts do not support your argument at all. Which begs the question; what is the real reason you are so anti-education? The answer is obvious; the less educated someone is, the more likely they are to buy into Conservative bullshit.

The end results are in the pudding of lowering the standards at the colleges for college level entries. The colleges turned into a bunch of whores with money grubbing and sexually perverted whores (male and female ones) literally running them.

Bullshit. The unemployment rate for 4-year college grads is 2.7%. That is full employment; meaning you are pretty much gauranteed a job if you have a four year degree. Also, wages for people with degrees are nearly double that for people without degrees, and nearly 50% higher than those with 2-year degrees. So what fucking argument are you trying to make? Less education = lower wages, less opportunity. That's what the BLS figures show. Why are you refusing to accept them?

It doesn't fucking matter.

Apparently it does matter when you have a bunch of incompetent people in positions where they never belonged in the first place.

 

[flacaltenn]

3. Medicare and Social Security are solvent through at least next decade. So it's hard to see how they are contributing to the problems we face today.

Soc Sec went negative in 2010. YEARS ahead of predictions. And it runs a deficit that is NOT funded by the phony Trust Fund. It is funded by the Treasury issuing NEW debt to cover the shortfalls.

How would you close Social Security's deficit?

Now $77Bill a year and growing. And it's "fixed" by issuing new ON BUDGET debt..

So it does impact the amount of money available for other social programs and welfare..
Biggest dual heist in the history of US govt..

 

[flacaltenn]

5. Red states contribute aboslutely nothing to the Treasury. Most all of them are welfare states that take more than they contribute. They subsidize low taxes by raiding the welfare block grant, which means they literally use welfare to pay for tax cuts. Which would make the entire right-wing fiscal belief system welfare-dependent.

Another mangled analysis. There are structural reasons for the $ in versus $ out statistic that is used. The Red States are where seniors can AFFORD to retire. Can't afford their northern homes in high tax states. So all of those benefits are counted. In addition they are home to most high population military installations and America's space program. These states also have far less DENSITY. Less density means more highway miles per capita. And it takes the same number of $$/mile to maintain interstates.

Home to CDC, home to more miles of borders and immigration and coast to guard. The list goes on..

It's not a scam. That's the way the numbers work out. You think it's fraud or theft??? It's not..

 

[flacaltenn]

5. Red states contribute aboslutely nothing to the Treasury. Most all of them are welfare states that take more than they contribute. They subsidize low taxes by raiding the welfare block grant, which means they literally use welfare to pay for tax cuts. Which would make the entire right-wing fiscal belief system welfare-dependent.

NOTHING that I've seen enables states to take welfare block grants and transfer them to General Fund items in their budgets. This is yet another mangled analysis issue. There are a COUPLE 30% redirects of block funds approved in the 1996 bill. But these are between RELATED welfare programs.. For instance..

http://royce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/the 1996 welfare reform law.pdf

It also entitled states that meet an MOE child care spending requirement to extra funds, which they must match with state dollars. Appropriated for the block grant was $13.9 billion over 6 years, more than $4 billion above spending levels estimated by CBO for the replaced programs. The law also authorized $7 billion in funding through FY2002 for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and it permitted states to transfer up to 30% of their TANF grant to CCDBG. The combined funding streams provided by the 1996 law are referred to as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Would it be better to stop Welfare after 2 years, FORCE people back to work, instead of them suckling the government teat forever?

In order to get most forms of welfare, you have to be employed.

wrong there are about 10 ways to waste your time to qualify for welfare and not work.

When Newt ended welfare as we know it by making it workfare fully half decided they were not really in need of welfare

 

[Markle]

2. A ponzi scheme results in someone at the top making off with all the money from everyone else. You haven't bothered to explain how Social Security is a Ponzi scheme since it pays out full benefits.

Social Security did not start out as a Ponzi scheme but it has, like all Progressive schemes, it has ended up that way.

Yes, it is paying full benefits today but it is now drawing down the loans made to the government's general fund. In 1950, 16.5 workers supported each SS recipient. In 1960 it dropped drastically to 5.1 and it is now below 3 workers per retiree.

Just as with all other Ponzi schemes, there was enough to pay out to all recipients in the beginning just so long as enough new investors come into the plan. Just ask Bernie Madoff.

 

[dblack]

2. A ponzi scheme results in someone at the top making off with all the money from everyone else. You haven't bothered to explain how Social Security is a Ponzi scheme since it pays out full benefits.

Social Security did not start out as a Ponzi scheme but it has, like all Progressive schemes, it has ended up that way.

Yes, it is paying full benefits today but it is now drawing down the loans made to the government's general fund. In 1950, 16.5 workers supported each SS recipient. In 1960 it dropped drastically to 5.1 and it is now below 3 workers per retiree.

Just as with all other Ponzi schemes, there was enough to pay out to all recipients in the beginning just so long as enough new investors come into the plan. Just ask Bernie Madoff.

Health insurance didn't start out as a Ponzi scheme either.