• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

Are Republicans against helping the middle class?


  • Total voters
    83
This is where this fails. A minority hold the majority of the wealth, the middle and lower class hold a tiny minority, assume taxes are "equal" for everyone, at a percentage rate, well, you can see where this falls apart, if not, I will gladly explain it.

It's a simple concept. If you want a service you need to be able to afford the service at what it costs. The cost should be equal between all of those desiring to purchase the service as what they are buying is the same. It's not hard to understand and only the government wants to run on a different principle.

Why should I pay more for things like police protection than you? If anything the police spend more time in poor communities, so they should pay more.
 
I fully support teacher unions, and I also support affordable and accessible education for all students looking to further there success in life.

Unions over education, that's about right.
 
It's a simple concept. If you want a service you need to be able to afford the service at what it costs. The cost should be equal between all of those desiring to purpose the service as what they buying is the same. It's not hard to understand and only the government wants to run on a different principle.

I am talking about taxes here, not the cost of services?..
 
I am talking about taxes here, not the cost of services?..

Many people like yourself tell me I must pay taxes to pay for those services that I receive from the government. :shrug:
 
Than let us advocate for both of these things.

The teachers have gotten a pass long enough, time to fire the incompetent ones immediately. Education is about the children, not the teachers.
 
The teachers have gotten a pass long enough, time to fire the incompetent ones immediately. Education is about the children, not the teachers.
I actually agree on this point, but it's the education system as a whole that needs to be reworked, drilling information into children so they can fill in bubbles to determine how much funding a school gets is preposterous.
 
If you think democrats care more about the poor and middle class in this country than the republicans do then you are sadly mistaken.

Not from looking at the normal people that frequent public forums I'm not. If the Democrats in congress are making voting decisions that favor corporate interests over those of the middle class then they're not representing our values.
 
The people who establish GOP policy are most likely believers in the concept of the Talented Tenth - the idea that only about 10% of the population is really worth a damn and is needed to keep everything together. While the term is normally associated with W.E.B. DuBois and African Americans - it applies to those who look at most of the masses as simply fodder for their machine.

As such, they want to help that upper tenth as much as possible in the belief that if the upper tenth is in good shape - then the rest will fall into place.

And under Obama's liberal policies the middle class is making less now then when he took office, there are more blacks unemployed under Obama then ever before, more on food stamps, etc etc. Liberals have never been about jobs or a growth economy or giving students a good education. Case in point on education, liberals are against student vouchers not allowing them to pick a school of their chose to get a good education. Liberals would rather pander to the teachers unions over the students education throwing the student under the bus.
 
I actually agree on this point, but it's the education system as a whole that needs to be reworked, drilling information into children so they can fill in bubbles to determine how much funding a school gets is preposterous.

kids have to be taught the basics

but we have lost so much of what once was in the classroom

i hate the idea of teachers teaching to a test

i also hate the idea that most kids never get any of the arts in the classroom

i live in a very highly rated school district....

The Montgomery County Board of Education approved a $2.39 billion Operating Budget request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, which will allow the district to provide the same services to a growing number of students; manage increased operational costs; and meet salary and benefit obligations. The budget represents a 4.1 percent increase over the current year’s budget.

Operating Budget - Montgomery County Public Schools, Rockville, MD

2.4 freaking billion dollars....and they still want more

it is like the government....it isnt now, and never will be enough for them

maybe someone smarter than i am can figure it out......

you would think that would be enough money to educate 155k students approximately
 
maybe just maybe you should read the OP

i quoted it DIRECTLY from there

Maybe just maybe you should read the question that I asked carefully. Let's try it again

How is refinancing a loan making the rich pay for it?
 
Did you even read my question? Do I have to spoon feed such a simple inquiry to you?

Did you read what I quoted? :lamo I already spoon feed you the relevant material, so I'm not sure what else I can do for you.
 
Did you read what I quoted? I already spoon feed you the relevant material, so I'm not sure what else I can do for you.

So, you have problems reading with comprehension and need to be baby fed. Let's try this simplified version that even a baby could understand

How is refinancing a loan making the rich pay for the loan?

Now that you have been spoon fed, can you understand?
 
Maybe just maybe you should read the question that I asked carefully. Let's try it again

Well it shouldn't theoretically. The interest rate doubled on student loans in the summer of 2013 and Congress didn't do anything about it until the refinance suggestion came up last year. But in the legislation the Democratic controlled Senate introduced last fall, they insisted that a 30% surtax be paid by all upper income wage earners to offset the loss of interest revenue the government would experience due to refinancing at a lower interest rate. Only 3 Republicans and 35 Democrats voted for that bill however. And the Democrats didn't put up a clean bill without the tax that probably would have passed. It is really tough for them to give up a really lucrative source for government revenue.

. . .In June (2013), the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report showing a $50.6 billion profit for the Department of Education on student loans. From 2013-2020, the CBO estimates the program will bring in profits of $160 billion, which includes the doubling of interest rates. Keeping rates at 3.4% would increase the government’s cost of the student loan program to $41 billion over the next 10 years, according to the report. . .​
How Much Do Student Loans Really Cost Taxpayers? | Fox Business

The interest rates went to 6.8% that summer.
 
Maybe just maybe you should read the question that I asked carefully. Let's try it again


Well...that depends

Who owns the loan?

If the government actually held the paper, then it is an entry on the federal budget

If the government is just the guarantor, then the BANKS who actually own the paper, need to be made whole

the program that is being touted will have a cost associated with it....making those institutions whole

in the OP, the cost will be paid by rich people using the Buffett rule

now....does that answer your question?
 
Well it shouldn't theoretically. The interest rate doubled on student loans in the summer of 2013 and Congress didn't do anything about it until the refinance suggestion came up last year. But in the legislation the Democratic controlled Senate introduced last fall, they insisted that a 30% surtax be paid by all upper income wage earners to offset the loss of interest revenue the government would experience due to refinancing at a lower interest rate.

If the government needs revenue, it should not be getting it from people trying to pay off student debt. The proceeds from borrowers payments should go to repay the loans only and not fund the government.
 
If the government needs revenue, it should not be getting it from people trying to pay off student debt. The proceeds from borrowers payments should go to repay the loans only and not fund the government.

You do realize that people in their thirties and even forties are still paying off their student loans, right?
 
Well...that depends

Who owns the loan?

If the government actually held the paper, then it is an entry on the federal budget

If the government is just the guarantor, then the BANKS who actually own the paper, need to be made whole

the program that is being touted will have a cost associated with it....making those institutions whole

in the OP, the cost will be paid by rich people using the Buffett rule

now....does that answer your question?

No, it does not. First of all, the government is actually making the loans now. Next of all the banks have already been made whole by the government taking away their bogus MBS and the associated. There is no need to charge borrowers such high interest rates.
 
You do realize that people in their thirties and even forties are still paying off their student loans, right?

So? They should be able to refinance student debt.
 
If the government needs revenue, it should not be getting it from people trying to pay off student debt. The proceeds from borrowers payments should go to repay the loans only and not fund the government.

Well you'll have to take that up with the U.S. Congress as they are the ones who set the rules, who allowed the interest rates to double in 2013, and who failed to fix that in 2014. I don't really have any problem with the government being in the student loan business as that is one government program that does actually pay for itself. But I tend to agree with you that it should ONLY pay for itself with maybe just a little bit left over to cover an unusually large number of defaults. And in my libertarian soul the government should be in that business only if the banks don't want it.
 
Well you'll have to take that up with the U.S. Congress as they are the ones who set the rules, who allowed the interest rates to double in 2013, and who failed to fix that in 2014. I don't really have any problem with the government being in the student loan business as that is one government program that does actually pay for itself. But I tend to agree with you that it should ONLY pay for itself with maybe just a little bit left over to cover an unusually large number of defaults. And in my libertarian soul the government should be in that business only if the banks don't want it.

I pretty much agree with what you have said and that is what this discussion is about. I don't have a problem with the government making the loans, however they should lower the interest rates.
 
Back
Top Bottom