Jump to content
Great_Gig

United States Presidential Election 2008

US Election  

144 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you vote for?

    • Barack Obama
      90
    • John McCain
      54


Recommended Posts

How is this plan even affordable? The latest statistics I could find show about 16 million college students in the US at both 4 and 2 year institutions. Say half of those students join the program (hey $40 an hour why not right?) That's $32 billion per year! And that's not counting the administration costs necessary to run such a program. The DOE budget is currently at what, $66 billion? This program would nearly be equal to the DOE budget if the majority of college students signed up. So who is going to pay for this stuff? Oh right, those of us who actually pay taxes will get shafted again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is this plan even affordable? The latest statistics I could find show about 16 million college students in the US at both 4 and 2 year institutions. Say half of those students join the program (hey $40 an hour why not right?) That's $32 billion per year! And that's not counting the administration costs necessary to run such a program. The DOE budget is currently at what, $66 billion? This program would nearly be equal to the DOE budget if the majority of college students signed up. So who is going to pay for this stuff? Oh right, those of us who actually pay taxes will get shafted again.

An excellent question, and one I fear the answer to. But my bet is that this plan will never actually work the way it's being envisioned. I don't see any reason to start worrying until it's much more official and fleshed out. Until that point, it's just an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it's a tax credit, they don't actually need to raise money for it, they just cut the taxes of those who enter the program. However, you are correct in that the money being given back will no longer be available for whatever else that money was supposed to be for (though I guess the proposed tax increases and closing of loopholes could perhaps cover it).

 

This is one area where both parties fail regarding fiscal responsibility. Both are now offering tax cuts, but aren't cutting federal spending to go along with it. It's irresponsible on the part of both parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading back over this thread and the other one, I like the way a lot of people are saying that something is 'the truth' with absolutely no qualification, as if it's some kind of insurmountable trump card that draws a finality under their point. It's only one step above saying "so's your face"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopefully this whooping by the Democrats will get the Republicans to properly assess the situation and look into why they've been losing these past two elections. I sincerely hope they decide to reshape their message to make it more palatable to the American people by kicking out the religious nutjobs and going back to being the party of small government, low taxes, and fiscal responsibility. Then maybe the American people will trust Republicans enough to vote them back into the majority.

 

Not likely - Latest Headline: "Joe Lieberman in talks to caucus with Republicans." I like Lieberman fine, but if the Repubs are going to reform, there's no room for libs like Lieberman in the Republican party.

 

Yes, you are technically right with your 'unconstitutional' definition. My point is that I think this is 'unconstitutional' in the same way that jay-walking and littering are 'crimes'. I just think your response is disproportionate to the 'offense', and I can't help but wonder if that has to do with some bias...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not likely - Latest Headline: "Joe Lieberman in talks to caucus with Republicans." I like Lieberman fine, but if the Repubs are going to reform, there's no room for libs like Lieberman in the Republican party.

 

Interesting, I was reading the opposite in the lead up to the election. Liberman was smoozing with Democrats to get back on their good side after having caucused with the Republicans while he was an independent. With 57 confirmed seats, the Democrats would only have to bring the two independents and one Republican onto their side to be able to pass a cloture motion. Looks like some people are gonna start freaking about the "super majority" nonsense again.

 

I didn't say the Republicans were going to change overnight. I'm sure they think they just need to ride out this anti-Bush sentiment and they'll be back in a few years. What I'm hoping for is that they consistently keep losing so as to shake them to the core and force the party to change. The Democrats controlled the government for decades, they aren't about to screw it up in the next couple of years. In the meantime, let's hope the Republican party goes back to its roots so that we finally have fiscally responsible people to vote for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Democrats controlled the government for decades, they aren't about to screw it up in the next couple of years....

 

:lol: That's working under the impression they didn't screw it up in the decades they had control of it :lol: We have more than 50% of government expenditures that originated from the New Deal through the Great Society. Programs that do nothing but grow and demand more, and can never be shrunk or stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the meantime, let's hope the Republican party goes back to its roots so that we finally have fiscally responsible people to vote for.

 

Hear, hear. That's my main issue, keep the government small and fiscally responsible. I'll vote for whatever party or whatever candidate is going to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hear, hear. That's my main issue, keep the government small and fiscally responsible. I'll vote for whatever party or whatever candidate is going to do that.

 

I've been seeing Newt Gingrich's name in the rumor mill for a 2012 run. He's old-time, fiscally responsible conservative (he pioneered the 1994 "Contract With America" sweep that brought us our balanced budget in the 90's) who is not afraid to go against the flow if he knows it's what's right. He has some personal baggage, but assuming nothing big comes out (like he's been attending a white supremacist church or 20-year friends with a convicted terrorist or some other disqualifier like that), I could see myself voting for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been seeing Newt Gingrich's name in the rumor mill for a 2012 run.
Kind of pointless to have an election then isn't it? Edited by Andrewr05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...