Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand

[Flopper]

I think most young people go into education today because they want a steady job and don't want to be dealing with the uncertainly of employment in the private sector.

When things slow down, most everybody is hit. However people who get into careers in need of higher education have less of a chance a machine will take over their job. As long as we keep advancing technology, more blue collar jobs will be lost.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Back over 60 years ago when it became clear automation would claim more and more jobs as time passed, the government developed a propaganda campaign to assure Americans that their future was save. Displaced workers would be retrained to do more interesting and better paying jobs. What a load of crap!

Years before that, writers portrayed the 21st century as a time of leisure with Mom playing with the kids while Dad engages in his favorite hobby as machines did all the work, a utopia that man had dreamed of for decades.

Things didn't quite work out as expected.

I don't think government ever created propaganda for automation, but I do believe they had no idea what kind of environment we would be living in once we got there. So they made assumptions.

I was a child in school during the 60's and I remember our Weekly Reader having articles on it. It was just too Jetson like to believe it would come true in our lifetime. After all, your typical household at the time had one phone, a record player, and perhaps a black and white television. There was only one vehicle per family and back then, a lot of women didn't even drive.

We were warned, but we didn't know what to expect; even the people that were giving us the warning.

I'll be off this planet long before 50 years from now, but it is troublesome what that world will look like with automation and technology being ten times more advanced than it is today. Where are all these people going to work?

My guess is most of those that work will be doing job sharing. Government will probably subsidize either directly or indirectly most of the population. Tax laws will reward employers that hire more people. I don't see how the country will not become more socialized regardless of who runs the country.

If we do that, government is going to have to get that money from somewhere. We are currently 22 trillion in debt and I know for a fact nobody will be able to wipe that slate clean in my lifetime.

We may just end up like China; have a restriction on the amount of children people can have. And then what are we going to do with all these foreigners that have been coming here the last 30 years, and more to come if Democrats end up in charge?

Automation will slash payroll cost and government will be there to take it's share of generated profits. However most business will be pushed into job sharing. 40 hour jobs would become two 20 hour jobs with government subsidies. I don't see any other alternative. Utopia will have arrived but I doubt most people will see it that way.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When things slow down, most everybody is hit. However people who get into careers in need of higher education have less of a chance a machine will take over their job. As long as we keep advancing technology, more blue collar jobs will be lost.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Back over 60 years ago when it became clear automation would claim more and more jobs as time passed, the government developed a propaganda campaign to assure Americans that their future was save. Displaced workers would be retrained to do more interesting and better paying jobs. What a load of crap!

Years before that, writers portrayed the 21st century as a time of leisure with Mom playing with the kids while Dad engages in his favorite hobby as machines did all the work, a utopia that man had dreamed of for decades.

Things didn't quite work out as expected.

I don't think government ever created propaganda for automation, but I do believe they had no idea what kind of environment we would be living in once we got there. So they made assumptions.

I was a child in school during the 60's and I remember our Weekly Reader having articles on it. It was just too Jetson like to believe it would come true in our lifetime. After all, your typical household at the time had one phone, a record player, and perhaps a black and white television. There was only one vehicle per family and back then, a lot of women didn't even drive.

We were warned, but we didn't know what to expect; even the people that were giving us the warning.

I'll be off this planet long before 50 years from now, but it is troublesome what that world will look like with automation and technology being ten times more advanced than it is today. Where are all these people going to work?

My guess is most of those that work will be doing job sharing. Government will probably subsidize either directly or indirectly most of the population. Tax laws will reward employers that hire more people. I don't see how the country will not become more socialized regardless of who runs the country.

If we do that, government is going to have to get that money from somewhere. We are currently 22 trillion in debt and I know for a fact nobody will be able to wipe that slate clean in my lifetime.

We may just end up like China; have a restriction on the amount of children people can have. And then what are we going to do with all these foreigners that have been coming here the last 30 years, and more to come if Democrats end up in charge?

Automation will slash payroll cost and government will be there to take it's share of generated profits. However most business will be pushed into job sharing. 40 hour jobs would become two 20 hour jobs with government subsidies. I don't see any other alternative. Utopia will have arrived but I doubt most people will see it that way.

Nor should they. But it goes right back down to the tax the rich debate. If you take money somebody else made, what's the point of making money in the first place?

 

[buckeye45_73]

'A clear divide exists among 2020 presidential Democrats who are rolling out plans to tackle the student debt crisis, whether tuition-free or debt-free policies are the way to win voter support.

By the numbers: Student debt in the United States has reached $1.5 trillion, and is responsible for much of millennials and generation Z's anguish.

In Congress

• Congressional committees have launched hearings to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which looks to discuss more affordability in college costs, student loan programs and more. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation to help students become debt free within 5 years of graduating.

Tuition free
These programs provide students 2 years of free tuition at participating state community colleges, associate-degree programs and vocational schools. The majority fall into the category of "last dollar" scholarships, indicating the program pays the difference in tuition after financial aid and grants have kicked in, per CNBC.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is still running on his 2016 campaign promise to make college tuition free and debt free. In 2016, Sanders introduced a bill called the "College for All Act," making public college tuition-free to students through a partnership between the federal government.
• Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro supports tuition-free college.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants to eliminate tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities. She also supports free community college tuition for everyone.
• New-age spiritual guru Marianne Williamson supports universal pre-school and free college.

Debt free
This idea aims to cover the costs associated with attending public college without requiring students to take out loans, by establishing federal matches for state spending on higher education and using those funds to fill unmet need for people pursuing degrees

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is running her campaign on students being debt free by using proceeds from her wealth tax. Warren is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. She has sponsored and co-sponsored several others including one in 2014 that allowed federal student loan borrowers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate.
• Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): She believes universal pre-K and college should be a "fundamental right," to be debt-free, The Atlantic reports. She is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill.
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Introduced a bill in 2018 for baby bonds, which attempted to close the racial-wealth gap in education. Booker is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill.
• Former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke has supported debt-free ideals. In 2018, he tweeted: "We should allow Texans who commit to working in in-demand fields and in underserved communities the chance to graduate debt free." O`Rourke co-sponsored Student Loan Affordability Act until 2015.
• Former tech executive Andrew Yang: Debt forgiveness plans and loan repayment plans, according to his campaign website.

Refinance student loans

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea of tuition-free college at a CNN town hall, but called for has called for free 2-year community college degrees. She offered up the idea to refinance loans and expand Pell grants.
• Former representative John Delaney has called for reforming bankruptcy laws so student loan debt can be discharged like all other debts as well as refinancing.

Mixed statements

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. In February, she tweeted she'd "allow all students to refinance their loans at 4%" if she were elected president.'

Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand


I can understand universal healthcare and the $15 minimum wage (I don't fully agree with them - but I can certainly understand the logic behind them).

But this is just bat shit nuts.

No one put a ******* gun to these students heads to go massively into debt...it was 100% their choosing. Why the 'f' do students suddenly deserve to have their tuition paid off by taxpayers? Why this generation and not previous generations? And what makes student loans more important then mortgages? Or business loans? Why have taxpayers pay off student loans but do nothing for low income people with heavy mortgages/debts or business loans (NOT that I am for paying those off either - but at least they make far more sense then just paying off student loans)? What is ******* next? Progressives want taxpayers to pay off their credit cards? Car payments? Gambling debts?

This is progressives being flat out selfish. Many progressives are under 30 with HUGE student debt. So naturally their first thought is themselves.

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

Our society is demanding more education. Not just college but technical

Make the employers pay

Yeah and make them pay for my Ferrari......I mean **** it, lets go all the way

 

[Dekster]

'A clear divide exists among 2020 presidential Democrats who are rolling out plans to tackle the student debt crisis, whether tuition-free or debt-free policies are the way to win voter support.

By the numbers: Student debt in the United States has reached $1.5 trillion, and is responsible for much of millennials and generation Z's anguish.

In Congress

• Congressional committees have launched hearings to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which looks to discuss more affordability in college costs, student loan programs and more. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation to help students become debt free within 5 years of graduating.

Tuition free
These programs provide students 2 years of free tuition at participating state community colleges, associate-degree programs and vocational schools. The majority fall into the category of "last dollar" scholarships, indicating the program pays the difference in tuition after financial aid and grants have kicked in, per CNBC.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is still running on his 2016 campaign promise to make college tuition free and debt free. In 2016, Sanders introduced a bill called the "College for All Act," making public college tuition-free to students through a partnership between the federal government.
• Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro supports tuition-free college.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants to eliminate tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities. She also supports free community college tuition for everyone.
• New-age spiritual guru Marianne Williamson supports universal pre-school and free college.

Debt free
This idea aims to cover the costs associated with attending public college without requiring students to take out loans, by establishing federal matches for state spending on higher education and using those funds to fill unmet need for people pursuing degrees

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is running her campaign on students being debt free by using proceeds from her wealth tax. Warren is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. She has sponsored and co-sponsored several others including one in 2014 that allowed federal student loan borrowers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate.
• Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): She believes universal pre-K and college should be a "fundamental right," to be debt-free, The Atlantic reports. She is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill.
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Introduced a bill in 2018 for baby bonds, which attempted to close the racial-wealth gap in education. Booker is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill.
• Former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke has supported debt-free ideals. In 2018, he tweeted: "We should allow Texans who commit to working in in-demand fields and in underserved communities the chance to graduate debt free." O`Rourke co-sponsored Student Loan Affordability Act until 2015.
• Former tech executive Andrew Yang: Debt forgiveness plans and loan repayment plans, according to his campaign website.

Refinance student loans

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea of tuition-free college at a CNN town hall, but called for has called for free 2-year community college degrees. She offered up the idea to refinance loans and expand Pell grants.
• Former representative John Delaney has called for reforming bankruptcy laws so student loan debt can be discharged like all other debts as well as refinancing.

Mixed statements

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. In February, she tweeted she'd "allow all students to refinance their loans at 4%" if she were elected president.'

Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand


I can understand universal healthcare and the $15 minimum wage (I don't fully agree with them - but I can certainly understand the logic behind them).

But this is just bat shit nuts.

No one put a ******* gun to these students heads to go massively into debt...it was 100% their choosing. Why the 'f' do students suddenly deserve to have their tuition paid off by taxpayers? Why this generation and not previous generations? And what makes student loans more important then mortgages? Or business loans? Why have taxpayers pay off student loans but do nothing for low income people with heavy mortgages/debts or business loans (NOT that I am for paying those off either - but at least they make far more sense then just paying off student loans)? What is ******* next? Progressives want taxpayers to pay off their credit cards? Car payments? Gambling debts?

This is progressives being flat out selfish. Many progressives are under 30 with HUGE student debt. So naturally their first thought is themselves.

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

As many people who already don't take advantage of the free public education provided to them, I doubt free college would be that much more expensive.

 

[Flopper]

Back over 60 years ago when it became clear automation would claim more and more jobs as time passed, the government developed a propaganda campaign to assure Americans that their future was save. Displaced workers would be retrained to do more interesting and better paying jobs. What a load of crap!

Years before that, writers portrayed the 21st century as a time of leisure with Mom playing with the kids while Dad engages in his favorite hobby as machines did all the work, a utopia that man had dreamed of for decades.

Things didn't quite work out as expected.

I don't think government ever created propaganda for automation, but I do believe they had no idea what kind of environment we would be living in once we got there. So they made assumptions.

I was a child in school during the 60's and I remember our Weekly Reader having articles on it. It was just too Jetson like to believe it would come true in our lifetime. After all, your typical household at the time had one phone, a record player, and perhaps a black and white television. There was only one vehicle per family and back then, a lot of women didn't even drive.

We were warned, but we didn't know what to expect; even the people that were giving us the warning.

I'll be off this planet long before 50 years from now, but it is troublesome what that world will look like with automation and technology being ten times more advanced than it is today. Where are all these people going to work?

My guess is most of those that work will be doing job sharing. Government will probably subsidize either directly or indirectly most of the population. Tax laws will reward employers that hire more people. I don't see how the country will not become more socialized regardless of who runs the country.

If we do that, government is going to have to get that money from somewhere. We are currently 22 trillion in debt and I know for a fact nobody will be able to wipe that slate clean in my lifetime.

We may just end up like China; have a restriction on the amount of children people can have. And then what are we going to do with all these foreigners that have been coming here the last 30 years, and more to come if Democrats end up in charge?

Automation will slash payroll cost and government will be there to take it's share of generated profits. However most business will be pushed into job sharing. 40 hour jobs would become two 20 hour jobs with government subsidies. I don't see any other alternative. Utopia will have arrived but I doubt most people will see it that way.

Nor should they. But it goes right back down to the tax the rich debate. If you take money somebody else made, what's the point of making money in the first place?

Your idea was eloquently dramatized in Ayn Rand's movie and book, "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950's. Back in my republican days, I eagerly devoured the book and watched the movie.

In the book, the rich go “on strike”, withdrawing their services and disappearing from society in protest against taxes and regulation. Weary of carrying an ungrateful world on their shoulders, business leaders and other top income earners finally shrug, and leave the world without them.

It sounds reasonable and fair and therefore it must be true. WRONG! The book is good fiction but the principal idea fails in real life. Statistically speaking, the rich don't abandon their business interest because taxes go up. In fact, even if taxes go up a lot, they do not hang it up for a life of leisure. I don't really understand the motivation of greed, but I suspect once the greed bug finds a host it doesn't let go easily. As many of our great entrepreneurs have expressed, it's not having the money that is important it's the making of money that is important.

If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think government ever created propaganda for automation, but I do believe they had no idea what kind of environment we would be living in once we got there. So they made assumptions.

I was a child in school during the 60's and I remember our Weekly Reader having articles on it. It was just too Jetson like to believe it would come true in our lifetime. After all, your typical household at the time had one phone, a record player, and perhaps a black and white television. There was only one vehicle per family and back then, a lot of women didn't even drive.

We were warned, but we didn't know what to expect; even the people that were giving us the warning.

I'll be off this planet long before 50 years from now, but it is troublesome what that world will look like with automation and technology being ten times more advanced than it is today. Where are all these people going to work?

My guess is most of those that work will be doing job sharing. Government will probably subsidize either directly or indirectly most of the population. Tax laws will reward employers that hire more people. I don't see how the country will not become more socialized regardless of who runs the country.

If we do that, government is going to have to get that money from somewhere. We are currently 22 trillion in debt and I know for a fact nobody will be able to wipe that slate clean in my lifetime.

We may just end up like China; have a restriction on the amount of children people can have. And then what are we going to do with all these foreigners that have been coming here the last 30 years, and more to come if Democrats end up in charge?

Automation will slash payroll cost and government will be there to take it's share of generated profits. However most business will be pushed into job sharing. 40 hour jobs would become two 20 hour jobs with government subsidies. I don't see any other alternative. Utopia will have arrived but I doubt most people will see it that way.

Nor should they. But it goes right back down to the tax the rich debate. If you take money somebody else made, what's the point of making money in the first place?

Your idea was eloquently dramatized in Ayn Rand's movie and book, "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950's. Back in my republican days, I eagerly devoured the book and watched the movie.

In the book, the rich go “on strike”, withdrawing their services and disappearing from society in protest against taxes and regulation. Weary of carrying an ungrateful world on their shoulders, business leaders and other top income earners finally shrug, and leave the world without them.

It sounds reasonable and fair and therefore it must be true. WRONG! The book is good fiction but the principal idea fails in real life. Statistically speaking, the rich don't abandon their business interest because taxes go up. In fact, even if taxes go up a lot, they do not hang it up for a life of leisure. I don't really understand the motivation of greed, but I suspect once the greed bug finds a host it doesn't let go easily. As many of our great entrepreneurs have expressed, it's not having the money that is important it's the making of money that is important.

If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats

They may not "hang it up" but they will leave for higher grounds as we have seen during the 70's and 80's, and yes, even the early 2000's.

So how does greed work? Greed is a reward system. It's the same reason we go to work every morning. If I tell you that government will take most of your paycheck, what's the reward for working?

It doesn't matter if the reward is barely enough to live off of, or perhaps the reward is to live a moderate middle-class lifestyle, or the reward is great wealth. We all work for rewards.

Therefore greed and rewards go hand and hand. Aren't we all greedy? When we search for a job, don't we take the highest offer? When we need our transmission fixed on our car, or a major plumbing project, do we not take the lowest bid?

Greed built this nation; the very idea that you would be rewarded for your time, financial investment, and hard work. In reality, greed is not such a bad thing.

 

[Flopper]

My guess is most of those that work will be doing job sharing. Government will probably subsidize either directly or indirectly most of the population. Tax laws will reward employers that hire more people. I don't see how the country will not become more socialized regardless of who runs the country.

If we do that, government is going to have to get that money from somewhere. We are currently 22 trillion in debt and I know for a fact nobody will be able to wipe that slate clean in my lifetime.

We may just end up like China; have a restriction on the amount of children people can have. And then what are we going to do with all these foreigners that have been coming here the last 30 years, and more to come if Democrats end up in charge?

Automation will slash payroll cost and government will be there to take it's share of generated profits. However most business will be pushed into job sharing. 40 hour jobs would become two 20 hour jobs with government subsidies. I don't see any other alternative. Utopia will have arrived but I doubt most people will see it that way.

Nor should they. But it goes right back down to the tax the rich debate. If you take money somebody else made, what's the point of making money in the first place?

Your idea was eloquently dramatized in Ayn Rand's movie and book, "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950's. Back in my republican days, I eagerly devoured the book and watched the movie.

In the book, the rich go “on strike”, withdrawing their services and disappearing from society in protest against taxes and regulation. Weary of carrying an ungrateful world on their shoulders, business leaders and other top income earners finally shrug, and leave the world without them.

It sounds reasonable and fair and therefore it must be true. WRONG! The book is good fiction but the principal idea fails in real life. Statistically speaking, the rich don't abandon their business interest because taxes go up. In fact, even if taxes go up a lot, they do not hang it up for a life of leisure. I don't really understand the motivation of greed, but I suspect once the greed bug finds a host it doesn't let go easily. As many of our great entrepreneurs have expressed, it's not having the money that is important it's the making of money that is important.

If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats

They may not "hang it up" but they will leave for higher grounds as we have seen during the 70's and 80's, and yes, even the early 2000's.

So how does greed work? Greed is a reward system. It's the same reason we go to work every morning. If I tell you that government will take most of your paycheck, what's the reward for working?

It doesn't matter if the reward is barely enough to live off of, or perhaps the reward is to live a moderate middle-class lifestyle, or the reward is great wealth. We all work for rewards.

Therefore greed and rewards go hand and hand. Aren't we all greedy? When we search for a job, don't we take the highest offer? When we need our transmission fixed on our car, or a major plumbing project, do we not take the lowest bid?

Greed built this nation; the very idea that you would be rewarded for your time, financial investment, and hard work. In reality, greed is not such a bad thing.

Greed can be good or bad depending on how it effects a person.

The fact is there has never been any mass exit of the wealthy over taxes. Statistics bear this out. The 1950's sported the highest top tax rate in American history (91%). GDP grew by 45% during the decade.

The desire to work is very basic to human nature. A person doesn't quit working and stay home because they got a salary cut. They find a better job. The same applies to business. If government increase taxes, the business tightens it's belt eliminates waste and explores ways to increase revenue in order to maintain and increase after tax profits. Just as greed pushes a person to increase profits, higher taxes pushes a person to maintain those profits.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

'A clear divide exists among 2020 presidential Democrats who are rolling out plans to tackle the student debt crisis, whether tuition-free or debt-free policies are the way to win voter support.

By the numbers: Student debt in the United States has reached $1.5 trillion, and is responsible for much of millennials and generation Z's anguish.

In Congress

• Congressional committees have launched hearings to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which looks to discuss more affordability in college costs, student loan programs and more. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation to help students become debt free within 5 years of graduating.

Tuition free
These programs provide students 2 years of free tuition at participating state community colleges, associate-degree programs and vocational schools. The majority fall into the category of "last dollar" scholarships, indicating the program pays the difference in tuition after financial aid and grants have kicked in, per CNBC.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is still running on his 2016 campaign promise to make college tuition free and debt free. In 2016, Sanders introduced a bill called the "College for All Act," making public college tuition-free to students through a partnership between the federal government.
• Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro supports tuition-free college.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants to eliminate tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities. She also supports free community college tuition for everyone.
• New-age spiritual guru Marianne Williamson supports universal pre-school and free college.

Debt free
This idea aims to cover the costs associated with attending public college without requiring students to take out loans, by establishing federal matches for state spending on higher education and using those funds to fill unmet need for people pursuing degrees

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is running her campaign on students being debt free by using proceeds from her wealth tax. Warren is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. She has sponsored and co-sponsored several others including one in 2014 that allowed federal student loan borrowers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate.
• Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): She believes universal pre-K and college should be a "fundamental right," to be debt-free, The Atlantic reports. She is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill.
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Introduced a bill in 2018 for baby bonds, which attempted to close the racial-wealth gap in education. Booker is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill.
• Former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke has supported debt-free ideals. In 2018, he tweeted: "We should allow Texans who commit to working in in-demand fields and in underserved communities the chance to graduate debt free." O`Rourke co-sponsored Student Loan Affordability Act until 2015.
• Former tech executive Andrew Yang: Debt forgiveness plans and loan repayment plans, according to his campaign website.

Refinance student loans

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea of tuition-free college at a CNN town hall, but called for has called for free 2-year community college degrees. She offered up the idea to refinance loans and expand Pell grants.
• Former representative John Delaney has called for reforming bankruptcy laws so student loan debt can be discharged like all other debts as well as refinancing.

Mixed statements

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. In February, she tweeted she'd "allow all students to refinance their loans at 4%" if she were elected president.'

Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand


I can understand universal healthcare and the $15 minimum wage (I don't fully agree with them - but I can certainly understand the logic behind them).

But this is just bat shit nuts.

No one put a ******* gun to these students heads to go massively into debt...it was 100% their choosing. Why the 'f' do students suddenly deserve to have their tuition paid off by taxpayers? Why this generation and not previous generations? And what makes student loans more important then mortgages? Or business loans? Why have taxpayers pay off student loans but do nothing for low income people with heavy mortgages/debts or business loans (NOT that I am for paying those off either - but at least they make far more sense then just paying off student loans)? What is ******* next? Progressives want taxpayers to pay off their credit cards? Car payments? Gambling debts?

This is progressives being flat out selfish. Many progressives are under 30 with HUGE student debt. So naturally their first thought is themselves.

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

As many people who already don't take advantage of the free public education provided to them, I doubt free college would be that much more expensive.

According to NPR, this is what it would cost when Hil-Liar introduced the plan.

In fiscal year 2014, the most recent year available, four-year public institutions collected $58 billion in tuition. Since 2011, they've collected more in tuition and fees than from all state sources combined.

Currently, the federal government spends $31 billion on federal grants and work-studyto all institutions, not just four-year public schools. So the cost of eliminating tuition would be around double that (maybe less, since some of that grant money already goes to tuition).

The Sanders campaign had previously estimated the cost of free college for all at $75 billion and proposed a tax on Wall Street transactions to pay for it.

But when you're talking about government subsidies for anything, the math isn't simple. States have relied on large annual tuition increases for decades. Tuition has risen 40 percent in the past 10 years at four-year public colleges and universities, as Hillary Clinton's campaign notes.

Clinton's Free-Tuition Promise: What Would It Cost? How Would It Work?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If we do that, government is going to have to get that money from somewhere. We are currently 22 trillion in debt and I know for a fact nobody will be able to wipe that slate clean in my lifetime.

We may just end up like China; have a restriction on the amount of children people can have. And then what are we going to do with all these foreigners that have been coming here the last 30 years, and more to come if Democrats end up in charge?

Automation will slash payroll cost and government will be there to take it's share of generated profits. However most business will be pushed into job sharing. 40 hour jobs would become two 20 hour jobs with government subsidies. I don't see any other alternative. Utopia will have arrived but I doubt most people will see it that way.

Nor should they. But it goes right back down to the tax the rich debate. If you take money somebody else made, what's the point of making money in the first place?

Your idea was eloquently dramatized in Ayn Rand's movie and book, "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950's. Back in my republican days, I eagerly devoured the book and watched the movie.

In the book, the rich go “on strike”, withdrawing their services and disappearing from society in protest against taxes and regulation. Weary of carrying an ungrateful world on their shoulders, business leaders and other top income earners finally shrug, and leave the world without them.

It sounds reasonable and fair and therefore it must be true. WRONG! The book is good fiction but the principal idea fails in real life. Statistically speaking, the rich don't abandon their business interest because taxes go up. In fact, even if taxes go up a lot, they do not hang it up for a life of leisure. I don't really understand the motivation of greed, but I suspect once the greed bug finds a host it doesn't let go easily. As many of our great entrepreneurs have expressed, it's not having the money that is important it's the making of money that is important.

If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats

They may not "hang it up" but they will leave for higher grounds as we have seen during the 70's and 80's, and yes, even the early 2000's.

So how does greed work? Greed is a reward system. It's the same reason we go to work every morning. If I tell you that government will take most of your paycheck, what's the reward for working?

It doesn't matter if the reward is barely enough to live off of, or perhaps the reward is to live a moderate middle-class lifestyle, or the reward is great wealth. We all work for rewards.

Therefore greed and rewards go hand and hand. Aren't we all greedy? When we search for a job, don't we take the highest offer? When we need our transmission fixed on our car, or a major plumbing project, do we not take the lowest bid?

Greed built this nation; the very idea that you would be rewarded for your time, financial investment, and hard work. In reality, greed is not such a bad thing.

Greed can be good or bad depending on how it effects a person.

The fact is there has never been any mass exit of the wealthy over taxes. Statistics bear this out. The 1950's sported the highest top tax rate in American history (91%). GDP grew by 45% during the decade.

The desire to work is very basic to human nature. A person doesn't quit working and stay home because they got a salary cut. They find a better job. The same applies to business. If government increase taxes, the business tightens it's belt eliminates waste and explores ways to increase revenue in order to maintain and increase after tax profits. Just as greed pushes a person to increase profits, higher taxes pushes a person to maintain those profits.

Correct, but that also includes skipping pay increases, taking more for medical coverage contributions, hiring freezes and price increases of products or services.

In the 1950's, American wages were closer to our foreign friends. Travel was more risky. We didn't have satellites and radars to tell us what the weather would be for traveling overseas. Even then travel was very expensive, and because of our antiquated communications back then, meetings were held where all the VIP's in the business had to get together to discuss operations.

Today travel is safer and cheaper. It doesn't take much to move your company from here to Brazil. A business owner can track his stocks and investments sitting on his toilet, and communications between other managers in the company can be done on Skype if necessary.

Point is there were very few options for businesses when taxes were that high. Government took advantage of that. And like today, most didn't pay near that 90% top tax rate. It only applied to individuals that made (in todays dollars) 2 million a year or more. Very few people made that kind of money nearly 70 years ago.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

 

[Hiryuu]

Our society is demanding more education. Not just college but technical

Make the employers pay

Our society is demanding representatives in Congress like Representative Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez who have a college education (cum laude - Boston University) and are stupid enough to think the Republicans changed the US Constitution to keep President Franklin D. Roosevelt from getting re-elected.*

Pay more for less, with honors.





*If Democrat Socialists don't mind dead people voting, it only makes sense they wouldn't mind a dead candidate.

 

[mikegriffith1]

We're $22T in debt. How would we pay for "free" college for all?

Liberals routinely whine about oil company profits, but they seem unconcerned about university profits. You have many, many, many "professors" earning six-digit salaries who actually work about 20-30 hours per week and get more paid time off than most Americans can even dream of.

 

[Flopper]

Automation will slash payroll cost and government will be there to take it's share of generated profits. However most business will be pushed into job sharing. 40 hour jobs would become two 20 hour jobs with government subsidies. I don't see any other alternative. Utopia will have arrived but I doubt most people will see it that way.

Nor should they. But it goes right back down to the tax the rich debate. If you take money somebody else made, what's the point of making money in the first place?

Your idea was eloquently dramatized in Ayn Rand's movie and book, "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950's. Back in my republican days, I eagerly devoured the book and watched the movie.

In the book, the rich go “on strike”, withdrawing their services and disappearing from society in protest against taxes and regulation. Weary of carrying an ungrateful world on their shoulders, business leaders and other top income earners finally shrug, and leave the world without them.

It sounds reasonable and fair and therefore it must be true. WRONG! The book is good fiction but the principal idea fails in real life. Statistically speaking, the rich don't abandon their business interest because taxes go up. In fact, even if taxes go up a lot, they do not hang it up for a life of leisure. I don't really understand the motivation of greed, but I suspect once the greed bug finds a host it doesn't let go easily. As many of our great entrepreneurs have expressed, it's not having the money that is important it's the making of money that is important.

If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats

They may not "hang it up" but they will leave for higher grounds as we have seen during the 70's and 80's, and yes, even the early 2000's.

So how does greed work? Greed is a reward system. It's the same reason we go to work every morning. If I tell you that government will take most of your paycheck, what's the reward for working?

It doesn't matter if the reward is barely enough to live off of, or perhaps the reward is to live a moderate middle-class lifestyle, or the reward is great wealth. We all work for rewards.

Therefore greed and rewards go hand and hand. Aren't we all greedy? When we search for a job, don't we take the highest offer? When we need our transmission fixed on our car, or a major plumbing project, do we not take the lowest bid?

Greed built this nation; the very idea that you would be rewarded for your time, financial investment, and hard work. In reality, greed is not such a bad thing.

Greed can be good or bad depending on how it effects a person.

The fact is there has never been any mass exit of the wealthy over taxes. Statistics bear this out. The 1950's sported the highest top tax rate in American history (91%). GDP grew by 45% during the decade.

The desire to work is very basic to human nature. A person doesn't quit working and stay home because they got a salary cut. They find a better job. The same applies to business. If government increase taxes, the business tightens it's belt eliminates waste and explores ways to increase revenue in order to maintain and increase after tax profits. Just as greed pushes a person to increase profits, higher taxes pushes a person to maintain those profits.

Correct, but that also includes skipping pay increases, taking more for medical coverage contributions, hiring freezes and price increases of products or services.

In the 1950's, American wages were closer to our foreign friends. Travel was more risky. We didn't have satellites and radars to tell us what the weather would be for traveling overseas. Even then travel was very expensive, and because of our antiquated communications back then, meetings were held where all the VIP's in the business had to get together to discuss operations.

Today travel is safer and cheaper. It doesn't take much to move your company from here to Brazil. A business owner can track his stocks and investments sitting on his toilet, and communications between other managers in the company can be done on Skype if necessary.

Point is there were very few options for businesses when taxes were that high. Government took advantage of that. And like today, most didn't pay near that 90% top tax rate. It only applied to individuals that made (in todays dollars) 2 million a year or more. Very few people made that kind of money nearly 70 years ago.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

Having run a business for 15 years, I can't imagine moving it to another country. It would separate me from my customer base. I would lose almost all of my staff. But worst of all, I would be operating in a culture I knew little about. It is far more likely an individual with great wealth would leave the country over taxes than a business because it would be just to damn hard.

The other consideration is a political one. Whose to say that current rates will not change radically in a few years in the US or where you plan to move. There are corporations that moved their headquarters abroad a few years ago and now corporate rates are lower in the US. Generally speaking, the best place to locate your headquarters is near your customer base and sources of supply of goods needed to run the business but there are many considerations other corporate taxes.

The countries that offer really low corporate taxes are generally places you you wouldn't want to locate your business such as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Montenegro, Kosovo, Paraguay, Nauru, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Andorra, Moldova, etc...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nor should they. But it goes right back down to the tax the rich debate. If you take money somebody else made, what's the point of making money in the first place?

Your idea was eloquently dramatized in Ayn Rand's movie and book, "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950's. Back in my republican days, I eagerly devoured the book and watched the movie.

In the book, the rich go “on strike”, withdrawing their services and disappearing from society in protest against taxes and regulation. Weary of carrying an ungrateful world on their shoulders, business leaders and other top income earners finally shrug, and leave the world without them.

It sounds reasonable and fair and therefore it must be true. WRONG! The book is good fiction but the principal idea fails in real life. Statistically speaking, the rich don't abandon their business interest because taxes go up. In fact, even if taxes go up a lot, they do not hang it up for a life of leisure. I don't really understand the motivation of greed, but I suspect once the greed bug finds a host it doesn't let go easily. As many of our great entrepreneurs have expressed, it's not having the money that is important it's the making of money that is important.

If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats

They may not "hang it up" but they will leave for higher grounds as we have seen during the 70's and 80's, and yes, even the early 2000's.

So how does greed work? Greed is a reward system. It's the same reason we go to work every morning. If I tell you that government will take most of your paycheck, what's the reward for working?

It doesn't matter if the reward is barely enough to live off of, or perhaps the reward is to live a moderate middle-class lifestyle, or the reward is great wealth. We all work for rewards.

Therefore greed and rewards go hand and hand. Aren't we all greedy? When we search for a job, don't we take the highest offer? When we need our transmission fixed on our car, or a major plumbing project, do we not take the lowest bid?

Greed built this nation; the very idea that you would be rewarded for your time, financial investment, and hard work. In reality, greed is not such a bad thing.

Greed can be good or bad depending on how it effects a person.

The fact is there has never been any mass exit of the wealthy over taxes. Statistics bear this out. The 1950's sported the highest top tax rate in American history (91%). GDP grew by 45% during the decade.

The desire to work is very basic to human nature. A person doesn't quit working and stay home because they got a salary cut. They find a better job. The same applies to business. If government increase taxes, the business tightens it's belt eliminates waste and explores ways to increase revenue in order to maintain and increase after tax profits. Just as greed pushes a person to increase profits, higher taxes pushes a person to maintain those profits.

Correct, but that also includes skipping pay increases, taking more for medical coverage contributions, hiring freezes and price increases of products or services.

In the 1950's, American wages were closer to our foreign friends. Travel was more risky. We didn't have satellites and radars to tell us what the weather would be for traveling overseas. Even then travel was very expensive, and because of our antiquated communications back then, meetings were held where all the VIP's in the business had to get together to discuss operations.

Today travel is safer and cheaper. It doesn't take much to move your company from here to Brazil. A business owner can track his stocks and investments sitting on his toilet, and communications between other managers in the company can be done on Skype if necessary.

Point is there were very few options for businesses when taxes were that high. Government took advantage of that. And like today, most didn't pay near that 90% top tax rate. It only applied to individuals that made (in todays dollars) 2 million a year or more. Very few people made that kind of money nearly 70 years ago.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

Having run a business for 15 years, I can't imagine moving it to another country. It would separate me from my customer base. I would lose almost all of my staff. But worst of all, I would be operating in a culture I knew little about. It is far more likely an individual with great wealth would leave the country over taxes than a business because it would be just to damn hard.

The other consideration is a political one. Whose to say that current rates will not change radically in a few years in the US or where you plan to move. There are corporations that moved their headquarters abroad a few years ago and now corporate rates are lower in the US. Generally speaking, the best place to locate your headquarters is near your customer base and sources of supply of goods needed to run the business but there are many considerations other corporate taxes.

The countries that offer really low corporate taxes are generally places you you wouldn't want to locate your business such as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Montenegro, Kosovo, Paraguay, Nauru, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Andorra, Moldova, etc...

Most of what you say is true except taxation. Before the Trump tax break, Canada had lower taxes.

One of our clients is a crate manufacturer. They make crates the size of suitcases to the size of tractor-trailers. During the Bush years, we made many deliveries to companies that needed those crates to get the hell out of the US.

Most of the time it was unions, but at other times it was other costs such as taxes. Whenever possible, I tried to speak with people about their move. I spoke with plant managers to actual owners. Nobody wants to move out of the US. But as an owner of one company told me, he either moves out of the US, or joins his workers in the unemployment line. There was no possible way to compete price wise with foreign entities. It was either move or close down because nobody would buy the place the way the books looked.

Another one I remember was a frequent customer of ours. We used to haul five to ten tractor-trailer loads a week at times. After they lost their lease in the building they were in, they looked at other nearby areas to move to. Then they discovered how much money they could save by moving south. Not only could they get rid of their union, but people work cheaper down there as well. They only offered jobs to management.

 

[Flopper]

Your idea was eloquently dramatized in Ayn Rand's movie and book, "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950's. Back in my republican days, I eagerly devoured the book and watched the movie.

In the book, the rich go “on strike”, withdrawing their services and disappearing from society in protest against taxes and regulation. Weary of carrying an ungrateful world on their shoulders, business leaders and other top income earners finally shrug, and leave the world without them.

It sounds reasonable and fair and therefore it must be true. WRONG! The book is good fiction but the principal idea fails in real life. Statistically speaking, the rich don't abandon their business interest because taxes go up. In fact, even if taxes go up a lot, they do not hang it up for a life of leisure. I don't really understand the motivation of greed, but I suspect once the greed bug finds a host it doesn't let go easily. As many of our great entrepreneurs have expressed, it's not having the money that is important it's the making of money that is important.

If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats

They may not "hang it up" but they will leave for higher grounds as we have seen during the 70's and 80's, and yes, even the early 2000's.

So how does greed work? Greed is a reward system. It's the same reason we go to work every morning. If I tell you that government will take most of your paycheck, what's the reward for working?

It doesn't matter if the reward is barely enough to live off of, or perhaps the reward is to live a moderate middle-class lifestyle, or the reward is great wealth. We all work for rewards.

Therefore greed and rewards go hand and hand. Aren't we all greedy? When we search for a job, don't we take the highest offer? When we need our transmission fixed on our car, or a major plumbing project, do we not take the lowest bid?

Greed built this nation; the very idea that you would be rewarded for your time, financial investment, and hard work. In reality, greed is not such a bad thing.

Greed can be good or bad depending on how it effects a person.

The fact is there has never been any mass exit of the wealthy over taxes. Statistics bear this out. The 1950's sported the highest top tax rate in American history (91%). GDP grew by 45% during the decade.

The desire to work is very basic to human nature. A person doesn't quit working and stay home because they got a salary cut. They find a better job. The same applies to business. If government increase taxes, the business tightens it's belt eliminates waste and explores ways to increase revenue in order to maintain and increase after tax profits. Just as greed pushes a person to increase profits, higher taxes pushes a person to maintain those profits.

Correct, but that also includes skipping pay increases, taking more for medical coverage contributions, hiring freezes and price increases of products or services.

In the 1950's, American wages were closer to our foreign friends. Travel was more risky. We didn't have satellites and radars to tell us what the weather would be for traveling overseas. Even then travel was very expensive, and because of our antiquated communications back then, meetings were held where all the VIP's in the business had to get together to discuss operations.

Today travel is safer and cheaper. It doesn't take much to move your company from here to Brazil. A business owner can track his stocks and investments sitting on his toilet, and communications between other managers in the company can be done on Skype if necessary.

Point is there were very few options for businesses when taxes were that high. Government took advantage of that. And like today, most didn't pay near that 90% top tax rate. It only applied to individuals that made (in todays dollars) 2 million a year or more. Very few people made that kind of money nearly 70 years ago.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

Having run a business for 15 years, I can't imagine moving it to another country. It would separate me from my customer base. I would lose almost all of my staff. But worst of all, I would be operating in a culture I knew little about. It is far more likely an individual with great wealth would leave the country over taxes than a business because it would be just to damn hard.

The other consideration is a political one. Whose to say that current rates will not change radically in a few years in the US or where you plan to move. There are corporations that moved their headquarters abroad a few years ago and now corporate rates are lower in the US. Generally speaking, the best place to locate your headquarters is near your customer base and sources of supply of goods needed to run the business but there are many considerations other corporate taxes.

The countries that offer really low corporate taxes are generally places you you wouldn't want to locate your business such as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Montenegro, Kosovo, Paraguay, Nauru, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Andorra, Moldova, etc...

Most of what you say is true except taxation. Before the Trump tax break, Canada had lower taxes.

One of our clients is a crate manufacturer. They make crates the size of suitcases to the size of tractor-trailers. During the Bush years, we made many deliveries to companies that needed those crates to get the hell out of the US.

Most of the time it was unions, but at other times it was other costs such as taxes. Whenever possible, I tried to speak with people about their move. I spoke with plant managers to actual owners. Nobody wants to move out of the US. But as an owner of one company told me, he either moves out of the US, or joins his workers in the unemployment line. There was no possible way to compete price wise with foreign entities. It was either move or close down because nobody would buy the place the way the books looked.

Another one I remember was a frequent customer of ours. We used to haul five to ten tractor-trailer loads a week at times. After they lost their lease in the building they were in, they looked at other nearby areas to move to. Then they discovered how much money they could save by moving south. Not only could they get rid of their union, but people work cheaper down there as well. They only offered jobs to management.

If you move out of the US a few years ago to Canada because of high corporate taxes, you'd be sorry today. They again, if Democrats get control of goverment in 2020, those taxes could be going up again.

I ran a consulting business so going outside the country would have never worked. IMHO, there is no place as good as America when starting your own business. From what I saw working in Europe, it seemed customers were very suspicious of new firms. If you haven't been in business for at 10 years, they didn't want to talk to you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They may not "hang it up" but they will leave for higher grounds as we have seen during the 70's and 80's, and yes, even the early 2000's.

So how does greed work? Greed is a reward system. It's the same reason we go to work every morning. If I tell you that government will take most of your paycheck, what's the reward for working?

It doesn't matter if the reward is barely enough to live off of, or perhaps the reward is to live a moderate middle-class lifestyle, or the reward is great wealth. We all work for rewards.

Therefore greed and rewards go hand and hand. Aren't we all greedy? When we search for a job, don't we take the highest offer? When we need our transmission fixed on our car, or a major plumbing project, do we not take the lowest bid?

Greed built this nation; the very idea that you would be rewarded for your time, financial investment, and hard work. In reality, greed is not such a bad thing.

Greed can be good or bad depending on how it effects a person.

The fact is there has never been any mass exit of the wealthy over taxes. Statistics bear this out. The 1950's sported the highest top tax rate in American history (91%). GDP grew by 45% during the decade.

The desire to work is very basic to human nature. A person doesn't quit working and stay home because they got a salary cut. They find a better job. The same applies to business. If government increase taxes, the business tightens it's belt eliminates waste and explores ways to increase revenue in order to maintain and increase after tax profits. Just as greed pushes a person to increase profits, higher taxes pushes a person to maintain those profits.

Correct, but that also includes skipping pay increases, taking more for medical coverage contributions, hiring freezes and price increases of products or services.

In the 1950's, American wages were closer to our foreign friends. Travel was more risky. We didn't have satellites and radars to tell us what the weather would be for traveling overseas. Even then travel was very expensive, and because of our antiquated communications back then, meetings were held where all the VIP's in the business had to get together to discuss operations.

Today travel is safer and cheaper. It doesn't take much to move your company from here to Brazil. A business owner can track his stocks and investments sitting on his toilet, and communications between other managers in the company can be done on Skype if necessary.

Point is there were very few options for businesses when taxes were that high. Government took advantage of that. And like today, most didn't pay near that 90% top tax rate. It only applied to individuals that made (in todays dollars) 2 million a year or more. Very few people made that kind of money nearly 70 years ago.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

Having run a business for 15 years, I can't imagine moving it to another country. It would separate me from my customer base. I would lose almost all of my staff. But worst of all, I would be operating in a culture I knew little about. It is far more likely an individual with great wealth would leave the country over taxes than a business because it would be just to damn hard.

The other consideration is a political one. Whose to say that current rates will not change radically in a few years in the US or where you plan to move. There are corporations that moved their headquarters abroad a few years ago and now corporate rates are lower in the US. Generally speaking, the best place to locate your headquarters is near your customer base and sources of supply of goods needed to run the business but there are many considerations other corporate taxes.

The countries that offer really low corporate taxes are generally places you you wouldn't want to locate your business such as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Montenegro, Kosovo, Paraguay, Nauru, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Andorra, Moldova, etc...

Most of what you say is true except taxation. Before the Trump tax break, Canada had lower taxes.

One of our clients is a crate manufacturer. They make crates the size of suitcases to the size of tractor-trailers. During the Bush years, we made many deliveries to companies that needed those crates to get the hell out of the US.

Most of the time it was unions, but at other times it was other costs such as taxes. Whenever possible, I tried to speak with people about their move. I spoke with plant managers to actual owners. Nobody wants to move out of the US. But as an owner of one company told me, he either moves out of the US, or joins his workers in the unemployment line. There was no possible way to compete price wise with foreign entities. It was either move or close down because nobody would buy the place the way the books looked.

Another one I remember was a frequent customer of ours. We used to haul five to ten tractor-trailer loads a week at times. After they lost their lease in the building they were in, they looked at other nearby areas to move to. Then they discovered how much money they could save by moving south. Not only could they get rid of their union, but people work cheaper down there as well. They only offered jobs to management.

If you move out of the US a few years ago to Canada because of high corporate taxes, you'd be sorry today. They again, if Democrats get control of goverment in 2020, those taxes could be going up again.

I ran a consulting business so going outside the country would have never worked. IMHO, there is no place as good as America when starting your own business. From what I saw working in Europe, it seemed customers were very suspicious of new firms. If you haven't been in business for at 10 years, they didn't want to talk to you.

All I can go by is what I know from personal and professional experience. We lost a lot of customers because they either moved out of the state or out of the country. Whether it's a good move or not, our best bet to keep as many jobs here is not bombard them with regulations and taxes. Increased minimum wage is another bad idea. That either encourages them to leave or invest in automation. Either way, a jobs killer.

 

[basquebromance]

Congressman O'Rourke supports debt-free college.

"when we invest in our kids, there's no stopping them, there's no stopping america!" - Beto

 

[basquebromance]

Stop trying to buy off my generation!