If I understood Bernie's words last night, he's pushing free tuition for U.S. College students.
According to his plan, Free College tuition would be paid for with a small tax on stock trades.
He didn't mention the amount of tax or how it would be imposed.
Off the cuff without investigating the math or average number of daily trades, I propose a $5.95 tax for each transaction over $ 500.00, when buying stocks valued above $1.00.
Big block investors like Warren Buffet would pay a $ 999.99 tax for every million dollars worth of stock trades.
It wouldn't be fair making the big guys pay the same or a larger percentage since their investments are helping the little guys survive and often help stocks to rise.
Penny stock speculators shouldn't be taxed at all since they need all the help they can get.
If a small investor like myself who has to diligently save for every $ 500.00 I can scrape up for investment, could easily afford a 5.95 surcharge, why not you ?
At the same time, if I was in charge I would put a freeze on minimum wage.
I believe the vast majority of employees who learn how to improve and increase their work performance will usually earn more money.
IMO Lazy employees don't deserve a raise.
Now that I've thought more about lazy employees, I believe students with less than a 3.2 average should lose their free tuition.
Just put it on the Chinese credit card? Tax the rich?
Here's a novel idea. Before we have another massive, big govt program, would it be ok if we fixed all the ones that are fked up first?
CBO keeps telling us our spending/deficits are unsustainable.
Are they lying?
Is that all just to be forgiven? If not, why should they pay and new enrolee's not have to pay?
The same kids that every 6 months have a new iPhone, tablet, hd TV, etc can't pay a few hundred bucks a month on their loans? Bullshit.
And we have to subsidize rich kids too? Notice they never talk about forgiving the debt of the destitute. They want it ALL forgiven.
The "gimme a trophy for just showing up" crowd has grown up.
Aren't we lucky?
Do you know how much debt the Chinese Government owns? Why not say "put it on the Japanese credit card"? That was the standard line back in the 80s when Japan was the big exporter. Remember the paranoia we had that Japan was taking over the world. How's that going? China is about 8% of our debt, Japan is about 7%, with the U.K. right behind Japan on the international side. U.S. individuals and institutions are the largest owners of debt, with the Federal Reserve in 2nd place.
Seems when things are going the wrong way, we need to an adversary to blame.
Here's a novel idea. Before we have another massive, big govt program, would it be ok if we fixed all the ones that are fked up first?
CBO keeps telling us our spending/deficits are unsustainable.
Are they lying?
Seems like you are picking at nits here Croix. Whether we have one or 50 credit cards, we have a massive debt problem, correct?
And where do you stand on Weekend at Bernies grand idea? Lol
It seems every politician, and rank amateur uses that "put it on the Chinese credit card" bumper sticker quote. Everybody needs to know who owns our debt. Japan was the economic boogeyman in the 1980s. Today it's China. It's easy to point fingers.
We can start with an easy fix to the debt problem. Move federal spending back to the historical norm of 18-20% of GDP. Today it's 24%.
See my response to Quad re Bernie's college plan. Besides the new tax, which would affect me personally, and debt explosion, it just won't work. And I wouldn't worry too much because Bernie will eventually be back as the Senator of Vermont.
And where do you stand on Weekend at Bernies grand idea? Lol
Nobody even gives a fk how MUCH the debt is, or how unsustainable it is, and you want them to know all the holders? Good luck.
And what spending are you gonna cut to get down to 18-20%???
Christ Croix, it was you telling me we HAVE to fund political organizations like PP.
You have sacred cows. I don't. It ALL needs to be cut and yes, that includes defense spending as there is waste there too
What happened? Remember the economic stimulus plan? It was something like $880B in the 2009 budget. Budget went to 25% of GDP. The problem was the baseline number changed. In 2008 the federal budget was something like $2.9T. In 2009 it increases to $3.7T, or close to it. You would think with the 2010 budget we would reduce the budget back to $2.9T plus an inflation factor? $3.7T became the new baseline. So other expenditures, programs, departments were created. The federal budget for 2016 is something like $3.5T. Obama has taken credit for reducing the budget, and reducing the deficit. See the stupidity?
I've repeatedly addressed PP in previous posts about the need to restructure and reengineer PP so it would focus on its original mission statement and core competencies. Now try that intro the next time you are at a progressive gathering of women, or a church social in Texas. So $400M is not worth the fight right now. It's a drop in the bucket. Plus it just pisses off a huge swath of potential voters. Unfortunately the word "compromise" no longer exists.
And what spending are you gonna cut to get down to 18-20%???
Christ Croix, it was you telling me we HAVE to fund political organizations like PP.
You have sacred cows. I don't. It ALL needs to be cut and yes, that includes defense spending as there is waste there too.
Sorry Croix, but the whole " we cant piss people off" mantra is what has caused this problem.
No one has the balls to stand up to anyone or anything. We NEED to start pissing people off, on both sides. THATS when we know we are putting country first and special interests second.
And I'll say it one more time. If we cant cut taxpayer money to a political organization like PP, we are doomed, and I got news for you...those progressive women weren't going to vote R anyway.
Just how much political capital are you willing to spend to save millions out of budget of trillions?
That's exactly why I am not supporting the likes of Cruz, Rubio, et al. They would rather expend all their political capital on issues that simply aren't important to millions of Americans. Do I think that PP is a political organization that should be defunded? Probably, but am I willing to make it a central point of the election when there are so many issues so much more important to this country right now? Absolutely not.
Say what you want about Trump, but he is the least likely candidate IMHO to be fighting "thumper issues" when we have much more serious business to attend to.
Certainly not I. But I am sure Leftys dont want to fund conservative groups/causes.
And guess what? Neither do I
Do you really think the lefties are going to let this happen without a fight?
Like I said, some battles just aren't worth fighting, this is one of them. It's just not enough money to be worth spending this much political capital.
That's the point GaG.
Everyone has a reason why we can never cut spending and reduce the debt and so we never do.
The "it's too hard" or the "liberals might get mad" argument doesn't cut it.
If we can't cut PP, how will we ever cut SS or Medicare
THOSE are the battles I am willing to fight, not symbolic issues like PP. Fighting PP as a fiscal issue is like Obama wanting to infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners as a response to terror attacks.
Let me rephrase your question. "if we are going to get bogged down on minor issues like PP, how are we ever going to address the serious issues like SS and Medicare?"
The only numbers I could find were from 2005 but they serve the desired purpose.
Looking at just the funding of programs, there were 1605 total but only 1395 had dollar amounts listed totaling $2 Trillion. I sorted, then grouped by order of magnitude and totaled them resulting in the following:
1295 funds (93% of total) with less than $1 billion each. Total = $99 billion (5% of total $)
75 funds (5% of total) with less than $10 billion each. Total = $201 billion (10% of total $)
19 funds (1.5% of total) with less than $100 billion each. Total = $584 billion (30% of total $)
6 funds (0.5% of total) with less than $345 billion each. Total = $1090 billion (55% of total $)
210 funds with unknown value that probably total about $300 billion 13% of the total money is unaccounted for. Total spending for 2004 was about $2.3 Trillion
The shear number and growth of agencies and funds is mind boggling. Until the baseline budgeting enacted in the 1970s is repealed we are doomed. But in Jack's favor there's another saying that "if your watch your pennies the dollars will take care of themselves."
http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/funding-programs/
http://grant-opportunities.idilogic.aidpage.com/grant-opportunities/
http://agencies.idilogic.aidpage.com/agencies/
http://us-federal-government-aid.idilogic.aidpage.com/us-federal-government-aid/
-- Modified on 12/22/2015 2:19:37 AM
"Statistics never lie, but liars use statistics!" Where are you Gag? And, statistics from 2005? 
-- Modified on 12/22/2015 8:58:04 AM
He hardly seems to be supporting a battle against PP. Quite the contrary, he seems to agree that PP is a relative drop in the bucket and that there are much bigger fish to fry, a position that I would think a liberal like you would tend to agree with.
I think you are just so used to disagreeing with Ed that you didn't really pay that much attention to the point he was making. Unless of course Ed was trying to make a different point that escaped me. Ed?
And you are correct about PP and their piece of the pie, although I do object to them from a political standpoint. They receive federal tax dollars yet turn right around and make political contributions, 99% to Democrats of course. They aren't the only beneficiary of tax dollars to do this but it should all be illegal (but that isn't on point here).
The statistics speak for themselves and be easily checked. Claiming I'm being dishonest as he did only substantiates the claim it is all personal with him. He's been so distraught lately he's resorted to responding to Laffy, and sounding a bit similar as well.
If anyone can find a newer set of data that is anywhere as complete as this I would love to analyse it although as I pointed out, the percentages consumed by each group are probably very similar today. They've all gotten bigger in magnitude and I'd be willing to bet that none or almost none have disappeared while more have been created.
So sorry you took it personally. I was addressing what I perceive as GaG's seeming bias in using the above mentioned saying. I can't recall him using it with someone on the right side of the aisle, but often enough with one on the left side of the aisle.
The Dems agreed reluctantly to lift the 4 decade old ban on oil exports. I trust the environmentalists are pissed, just like the Conservatives are pissed off over the fact that PP and Obamacare are funded through 2016. They are all part of the $1.1T spending bill negotiated by Paul Ryan on the Right. Tell me Jack, on the surface was that a good trade off?
What's that old line Jack, "You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate".
Something to the effect:
"If both sides are pissed then it was a fair negotiation"
Except of course in this case the Democrats aren't pissed very much. Reid, Pelosi etal. are all crowing about how great a deal it was. Ryan was praising it too except I don't believe him. He wasn't even smiling like Reid and Pelosi were.
Bc China holds an excessive amount of our debt- both T bills and corporate bonds - China has the ability to sink our economy if it dumped all this debt over a short period of time. This would cause interest rates to spike and hurt the stock market and the housing market. Plus it would impact the dollar - and since oil is priced in dollars, this would further cause volatility in the oil market.
And if China also stopped buying our debt, who else would? The answer is = the Federal Reserve which would "print"more money to buy the T bills. QE 4 and counting.
So St. Croix is right- we need to have debt spread as much as possible to reduce the chances of China being able to use its holdings as a weapon to influence policy and sink our economy.
The point wasn't whether the debt should be spread out among different countries/entities, the point was does it matter if the average American cares about the exact verbiage? I argue they don't.
Croix was making a semantical argument about my "Chinese credit card" comment. He seems to think there is something wrong with that figure of speech. Point conceded if that makes him/you happy.
The "something wrong" is the size of the debt, not parsing phrases over who we really owe.
you asked “does it really matter” and in your post stated “whether we have one of 50 credit cards, we have a massive debt problem.”
And you are correct about that but incomplete. If there is only “one” credit card, then we are fucked bc we are at the mercy of that creditor. So this is “why it really matters” and why I agree with St. Croix, who took the trouble to actually list the debt percentage held by China and ask if you knew how much debt China holds, , that “everyone needs to know who owns the debt.”
At some point, it even becomes a national security problem
But I agree with your points re: several creditors is better than one and your national security concern as well.
of Bernie's free college (public institutions only) for everybody. You do realize he hasn't disclosed any specific details, and this goes beyond the "who is going to pay for this". Think of the immediate demand. There are something like 600+ 4 year public universities versus 1800+ 4 year private universities. Logic says the demand for public universities will outstrip the supply. Public universities are already operating at well over 100%. Try and get a kid through in 4 years. Think of the enrollment requirements (GPA and SAT). It will increase based on demand. Who suffers? What are the consequences? There will be students left behind. Are you ready for an Federal affirmative action program?
How about foreign students who make up about 5 - 10% of the student population? You do realize the value of these students today? Does local demand force them out? You don't want to do that for a myriad of reasons.
I can go on and on and on.
-- Modified on 12/20/2015 7:21:50 PM