Reddy

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 06:22 PM) So what amount should they get from corp's and billionaires? Just curious? Should we just let Billionaires and Corporations pay for everything and the rest of us all pay no taxes? Where did I suggest that? We should all pay an equal proportion. Kinda simple.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 06:02 PM) That's not the only example. I know someone who graduated from Harvard Law, and she realized that corporate law simply wasn't for her, there were a couple of suicides at her downtown law firm (at least one jumped through the window) and she chose at that time to work teaching law (writing) at a major university. There's an incentive for those who attend law school to work in the public sector/non-profit, places like the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example. Also, and this isn't directly about your comments but preceding ones....if we have our family money in a trust (father passed away) and the whole trust is transferred to my family and I instead of my mother having to pay an extreme amount of her personal funds for long-term care to the point where all the trust is drained away and then she can finally qualify for Medicare/Medicaid to pay for a higher share, isn't that also wrong? Yet how many rich parents transfer $10,000 per year to their children (tax free)...or go out of their way to avoid paying any estate taxes? Isn't that even worse than paying a lower percentage of your student loans, because transferring wealth to the next generation through a trust costs the government a lot more money in lost revenue, does it not? Not to mention the government under Bush moved the number from the high hundred thousands to around $5 million before taxes would kick in on estates/trusts for wealthy individuals. I was just about to make this argument. For Jenks to be targeting the poor is horribly misplaced, when the impact on America's taxpayers is much, much higher from the rich and powerful taking advantage of tax loopholes, etc. The government wouldn't need to raise taxes or create these incentive programs if they were getting the money they should be in the first place from corporations and billionaires.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 05:58 PM) Students can discharge literally any other debt that they get when they don't have collateral. Credit card debts for one. Medical debts for another. Personal loans to friends. The deficiency on a car loan (after the collateral is sold for pennies on the dollar). Literally almost no other private debt gets that favorable treatment (domestic support obligations - but that's about it). In fact, it's actually easier to discharge tax debt than student loan debt. The question, to me, is how is a consumer's money put to the best use. College is almost a pre-requisite to finding a good job. The costs associated with that degree are growing at an unsustainable rate. I don't see why putting together programs that assist with repaying that burden - again a burden that's a pre-requisite to almost any decent job - is so very problematic. Now, in the case of the income based repayment plan or whatever (a program I admit to not being particularly familiar with), it shouldn't be a windfall - so if someone's income goes up in that 25 years or whatever, their payments should increase accordingly. Ideally, a program like that assists people when their means are most likely to be at their lowest - immediately when they graduate - and should be caught up when income rises within that 25 year period or whatever. that's exactly how it works, and there's nothing wrong with that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 05:47 PM) I think it's the classic example of a buddy or family member asking you to lend them some money because they can't afford to do X and then you find out they went out the night before and dropped 100 bucks for dinner and drinks or just bought an expensive toy. When you borrow money from someone you shouldnt be spending any extra dollars on anything else but that loan. Otherwise it just looks like you're taking advantage of the generosity. someone's bitter. I'm paying back the loan AND saving for retirement. I'm doing what someone my age SHOULD be doing. I honestly don't understand how I can be faulted for doing that. haha

I also feel like all of you are missing the fact that as I make more money, I'm paying more in student loans... I'm just ALSO putting money into an IRA. The fact that you all are acting like I'm "choosing" not to pay my loans back is hilarious. Like... you guys don't think I'm trying to make more and more money? If that means I have to pay more in loans, so be it, but that's my goal. I'm not TRYING to game the system. Lol.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 04:35 PM) You're looking out for yourself. For better or worse that's what you're doing, and no one can tell someone who is doing that that they are wrong. However, this is not what the rule was meant for. If a person is able to put away a significant amount of money then they should not able to take advantage of that program IMO. The program is not meant to pay back what you feel like you want to in order to maximize how much you can have forgiven 25 years later. Because what is forgiven is paid back by everyone else who follows the rules. So like you said, maybe you should act more like those who vote Republican instead of those who tend to vote Liberal. guys. my IRA has a whole $4,800. let's not blow this out of proportion.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 04:05 PM) IMO any significant "saving and retirement" money should be going to pay of your loans, if it's a realistic possibility that in 25 years a balance on your loans will be forgiven. So I shouldn't take advantage of a program that exists. Instead I should make sure I have less money as I get older. I should act against my own self interest. In other words, I should act like the majority of folks who vote Republican. Got it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:17 PM) All while not paying back your student loans in full. Let Uncle Sam pick up that tab, right? As my income goes up, the amount I pay will, in turn, go up. Not sure what you're getting at here.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 10:17 AM) This is like a Facebook life, where all you see is the glamour, and none of the struggle. Which was kind of my point in the first place. Right... But the struggle resulted in a job I love that also allows me to save and build up a retirement portfolio, all while having awesome adventures. Win/win/win.

Ugh... that did NOT have to be so big. Fail.

Huh... see... I pretty much love my job... Yes. I get paid to play on the beach.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 24, 2015 -> 10:43 PM) All I have to say is that list proves that all congresscritters have too much time on their hands. S.Res.720 — 110th Congress (2007-2008) A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month? S.Con.Res.103 — 110th Congress (2007-2008) A concurrent resolution recognizing the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the Minority AIDS Initiative.? S.3567 — 110th Congress (2007-2008) A bill to establish a Commission on the conflict between Russia and Georgia, and for other purposes.? S.Res.630 — 110th Congress (2007-2008) A resolution recognizing the importance of connecting foster youth to the workforce through internship programs, and encouraging employers to increase employment of former foster youth.? S.3317 — 110th Congress (2007-2008) A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 101 West Main Street in Waterville, New York, as the "Corporal John P. Sigsbee Post Office".? S.Amdt.2823 — 110th Congress (2007-2008) Description: To require a report on plans to alleviate congestion and flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace? Very interesting selection of things. If everyone else's is just as wide, they just need to go home more often. Oh, and you guys keep bringing up Lincoln. Look it up yourself if you are interested. I can't see what you find wrong about any of those things, to be honest. What do you think congress DOES with most of its time?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 24, 2015 -> 04:53 PM) When was the last time she practiced law? Tell me about Lincoln's history as a lawyer.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 24, 2015 -> 04:52 PM) You got some data for that? If she sponsored or co sponsored 200 bills by herself, in that short of a time frame, just imagine how many other bills are out there to be voted on. I thought our congress did nothing? I looked at several sites but none would give totals. I looked here, and it has 10 pages of about 50 votes on each. 500 is a lot short of 2000. And most of them are not sponsored or co sponsored. 61 co sponsors and 5 sponsored. http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/5...on#.VMQTNP7F8fY Here ya go, buddy. It's actually over 3,000 combined bills. https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/1631

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 24, 2015 -> 01:58 PM) How many times did Abraham Lincoln fail, get fired, go bankrupt or lose a race? Shouldn't that career record have disqualified him? You're acting like she is Rick Perry or something. Caulfield for the win Lincoln was a terrible f***ing lawyer! hahaha

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 24, 2015 -> 12:34 PM) Let's just start with this. I know the story is that HIllary got fired from the Watergate thing. While that fact itself is false, the guy had said both "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her" and "ell, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions." So right off the bat she did something wrong. And being an influential lawyer is different from being a good lawyer. Remember, she had connections, like an ex-President, that could go a long way for influencing things. Just perhaps not in a jury box? As for leaving, you are correct, they have to go somewhere. But they hunted for a safe place, found a nice Democratic state and went to work. Obama had at least lived in Illinois longer than 6 months before deciding to run for office. And a point for Hillary for actually voting more than Obama did while in the Senate. I will disagree with you in that I believe she is all hat. She also sponsored almost 900 bills and co-sponsored over 1100 during her tenure.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 24, 2015 -> 12:48 AM) Do you guys just read the words or sentences that really pop out at you or something? I pointed out that her political qualifications were being 'smart' enough to stay married to a cheating husband so she could ride his coattails with name recognition into a Senate job with zero previous legislative experience. She was a crappy lawyer who marrie right, then carpetbagged her way into a cushy Senate job just because of her name and husband, rode THAT to a Presidential race and cabinet job and now wants to be President. I guess she did hold office longer than Obama did. edit: And Newt was a pretty slimy guy. But once again, just because the 'other side did it too' doesn't make it right. Hahaha the irony. also you're massively sexist and it's pretty gross. secondly, The National Law Journal twice listed her as one of the hundred most influential lawyers in America. Out of curiosity, what political qualifications SHOULD people have prior to running for a public office such as Congress? Just wondering what your criteria are.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 08:29 PM) This is about the only thing you said I can agree with. However, since you can't read, I DID mention that in the post you had referred to. " 6 figure salaries for professors and even higher for admin and some coaches?"... that's why I mentioned it, because I can - in fact - read. I can also spell!

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 08:14 PM) Show me just what you think is wrong with what I posted. Besides you not liking it. She was a carperbagger, Bill cheated and she looked the other way, she had no political experience before than and got their on name recognition, Bengazi happened, people died and they wrongly blamed a movie. And Walker and MArtinez are governors and running states. So a woman who goes to Yale Law and is considered one of the best lawyers in the country is a carpetbagger solely because her husband decides to run for President? Sexism and misogyny for the win! No political experience? (also it's "then" and "there") In what world does Hillary Clinton have no political experience? Additionally, being a lawyer and the wife of a governor and president gives you - I'd think - SOME insight into the world of politics. No? Benghazi is hilarious. HILLarious. http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp And Walker is literally a joke who almost got recalled by his own constituents. And Martinez's state was one of just TWO states to lose jobs in 2014. Good luck with that.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 08:14 PM) Show me just what you think is wrong with what I posted. Besides you not liking it. literally every word of it is factually incorrect.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 08:13 PM) Professors are the 1%. And they deserve their 100k salaries. Now if we're talking about coaches making millions, then that's a discussion worth having.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 08:09 PM) Walker and Martinez have at least had experience running something (states) with some success, whereas Hillary has experience being a doormat for her cheating husband so she could ride his coattails to political office. Carpetbagger, that is her. And her most notable happening as Sec. State was getting people killed in Bengazi and blaming a stupid internet film for it. I honestly don't think I've ever read anything more hilariously out of touch and detached from reality at that.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 08:07 PM) How about lowering the cost of tuition? 6 figure salaries for professors and even higher for admin and some coaches? More admin staff than teachers? Quit trying to figure out how to afford the high prices, figure out how to get the prices down. professors deserve their salaries.

I'm not sure this thread is about the SOTU anymore...

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:03 PM) Yeah, because Rubio, Walker, Martinez, all trash. No chance. How good will Hillary look when it comes out that Bill was schtooping underage hookers on Jeffrey Epstein’s sex island? All you will have left then is Elizabeth 'I AM Indian, honest!' Warren. they... they... yeah they are all trash candidates!