Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Right. Government student loans, with a maximum amount of $5000.00 is why private school tuition is over 50k. Apparently, you did not take advantage of student loans for college, or college. You do understand that the government is MORE involved in paying for college in Europe than here, right? So, explain again how our government's lesser involvement in college means higher college costs and less assistance?You are you talking about? Sounds sorta third partyish. I lived in Germany for 7 years and can say most Americans do have it better, we're quite spoiled actually. Student loans? Blame that ont he government, they helped tuition go through the roof. It happens when government gets involved. Nor did I claim everyone here was doing better than everyone in Europe.He said without any idea what life is like there. We have houses, cars, and land here, must be no one has it better. We also have huge student debt, a high rate of poverty, and a complete lack of upward mobility. Maybe when you say in every measure, you should do some quick research and measure something rather than look outside and go "nuh uh, look at my stuff"Total bullshit. In every measure. Look at our homes, cars, entertainment, land etc.And yet, in the nations of Europe that you would call socialist, the opposite is true. They have a better quality of life than we do, by any measure.
Read a goddamn post. I said it should be run by the states.And yeah, OSHA is dumb let's go back to workers dying by the thousands in preventable conditions like in the third world, read a goddamn book.EPA? The same fuckups that turned a river into a heavy metal soup? OSHA is unrealistic and adds a lot of cost to construction that we all pay for. Those should be state run, not federal.OK, couple of things here.
OK, couple of things here, EPA, OSHA, the clean water you drink and student aid. Secondly, I find it funny that right-wing folks act as though social programs are bankrupting this country, not the unnecessary TRILLIONS spent in foreign wars. The amount we give out in bailouts of "corporate welfare" TRIPLES the amount we pay for personal welfare, food stamps, social security etc.. As for Greece being a failed example of socialism Greece was the primary victim of the 2008 financial crisis when countries of the world shifted their problems around and they landed on Greece. The idea that socialism is what caused Greece to fail is borderline retarded. Since the world governments have been calling for austerity in Greece (the cutback of wages, benefits, social programs etc. ) things in Greece went from slow recovery to a complete landslide back into worse economic chaos. To look for a state that has had more socialism for quite some time and uses it to the benefit of all successfully you have Finland and Denmark to just name two. And while we are at I suppose that you blame social programs for every major financial collapse in America? Who cares that it stems from unregulated, risky banking tactics.Which socialist program is NOT in trouble?What specifically do you dislike about socialism, and how does that differ from the way we run current social programs? Don't give me slippery slope or some other weasel excuse. What specifically do you dislike about socialism and how does that differ from the way we run current social programs?
The cost of the wars is dwarfed by entitlement spending and it's growing exponentially. It is not sustainable and blaming the evil right wing won't solve it.
Greece spend themselves into bankruptcy, the retard is YOU.
You have posted not one fucking word about fiscal responsibility. The last five presidents have been three Republicans and two Democrats. Guess which of the five presided over lowering deficits and which over rising deficits.Which proves my point, you think fiscal responsibility is irrational.No. It requires something you lack; rationality.No, it requires doing the left thing, which requires more faith than religion.Unlike religion though, socialism doesn't require a holy book simply to do the right thing
Right. Make companies with operations in twenty states have to try to follow twenty different sets of rules. That would not be costly, would it?Read a goddamn post. I said it should be run by the states.And yeah, OSHA is dumb let's go back to workers dying by the thousands in preventable conditions like in the third world, read a goddamn book.EPA? The same fuckups that turned a river into a heavy metal soup? OSHA is unrealistic and adds a lot of cost to construction that we all pay for. Those should be state run, not federal.OK, couple of things here.
OK, couple of things here, EPA, OSHA, the clean water you drink and student aid. Secondly, I find it funny that right-wing folks act as though social programs are bankrupting this country, not the unnecessary TRILLIONS spent in foreign wars. The amount we give out in bailouts of "corporate welfare" TRIPLES the amount we pay for personal welfare, food stamps, social security etc.. As for Greece being a failed example of socialism Greece was the primary victim of the 2008 financial crisis when countries of the world shifted their problems around and they landed on Greece. The idea that socialism is what caused Greece to fail is borderline retarded. Since the world governments have been calling for austerity in Greece (the cutback of wages, benefits, social programs etc. ) things in Greece went from slow recovery to a complete landslide back into worse economic chaos. To look for a state that has had more socialism for quite some time and uses it to the benefit of all successfully you have Finland and Denmark to just name two. And while we are at I suppose that you blame social programs for every major financial collapse in America? Who cares that it stems from unregulated, risky banking tactics.Which socialist program is NOT in trouble?What specifically do you dislike about socialism, and how does that differ from the way we run current social programs? Don't give me slippery slope or some other weasel excuse. What specifically do you dislike about socialism and how does that differ from the way we run current social programs?
The cost of the wars is dwarfed by entitlement spending and it's growing exponentially. It is not sustainable and blaming the evil right wing won't solve it.
Greece spend themselves into bankruptcy, the retard is YOU.
I have a college degree, Einstein.Right. Government student loans, with a maximum amount of $5000.00 is why private school tuition is over 50k. Apparently, you did not take advantage of student loans for college, or college. You do understand that the government is MORE involved in paying for college in Europe than here, right? So, explain again how our government's lesser involvement in college means higher college costs and less assistance?You are you talking about? Sounds sorta third partyish. I lived in Germany for 7 years and can say most Americans do have it better, we're quite spoiled actually. Student loans? Blame that ont he government, they helped tuition go through the roof. It happens when government gets involved. Nor did I claim everyone here was doing better than everyone in Europe.He said without any idea what life is like there. We have houses, cars, and land here, must be no one has it better. We also have huge student debt, a high rate of poverty, and a complete lack of upward mobility. Maybe when you say in every measure, you should do some quick research and measure something rather than look outside and go "nuh uh, look at my stuff"Total bullshit. In every measure. Look at our homes, cars, entertainment, land etc.And yet, in the nations of Europe that you would call socialist, the opposite is true. They have a better quality of life than we do, by any measure.
So me talking about socialists spending themselves into bankruptcy isn't clue enough for my fiscal responsibility stance? obama has us up to over 18 trillion in debt. The REPUBLICANS have lowered increased spending.You have posted not one fucking word about fiscal responsibility. The last five presidents have been three Republicans and two Democrats. Guess which of the five presided over lowering deficits and which over rising deficits.Which proves my point, you think fiscal responsibility is irrational.No. It requires something you lack; rationality.No, it requires doing the left thing, which requires more faith than religion.Unlike religion though, socialism doesn't require a holy book simply to do the right thing
So, $7,5000 loans are why colleges cots 50 k. When I attended college the tuition, R and B was about 10k. I could borrow $3500.00. My kids are at the same school. Tuition, R and B is 50 k. They can borrow 5500 the first yr, 6500 the second and 7500 the last two. So, explain, Einstein, how doubling the max loan amount led to a five fold increase in the cost.I have a college degree, Einstein.Right. Government student loans, with a maximum amount of $5000.00 is why private school tuition is over 50k. Apparently, you did not take advantage of student loans for college, or college. You do understand that the government is MORE involved in paying for college in Europe than here, right? So, explain again how our government's lesser involvement in college means higher college costs and less assistance?You are you talking about? Sounds sorta third partyish. I lived in Germany for 7 years and can say most Americans do have it better, we're quite spoiled actually. Student loans? Blame that ont he government, they helped tuition go through the roof. It happens when government gets involved. Nor did I claim everyone here was doing better than everyone in Europe.He said without any idea what life is like there. We have houses, cars, and land here, must be no one has it better. We also have huge student debt, a high rate of poverty, and a complete lack of upward mobility. Maybe when you say in every measure, you should do some quick research and measure something rather than look outside and go "nuh uh, look at my stuff"Total bullshit. In every measure. Look at our homes, cars, entertainment, land etc.And yet, in the nations of Europe that you would call socialist, the opposite is true. They have a better quality of life than we do, by any measure.
You could at least learn how to do a three second web search.
What is the Maximum Student Loan Limit - loan.com
Loan Limits for Dependent Students
Students can determine whether they are considered dependent or independent by filling out the Dependency Status worksheet of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Students are dependent if they are younger than 23, unmarried, not in a graduate program or not active duty military personnel or an armed forces veteran. Whether or not a student is declared as a dependent on his or her parents’ income taxes does not affect dependency status for student loans.
Dependent students can borrow $5,500 their first year, $6,500 their second year and $7,500 their third and subsequent years. These annual limits are for the full year and are pro-rated if the remainder of the program is less than one academic year.
Independent Student Loan Limits
Students who can answer “no” to one of the questions asked on the dependency status worksheet have a higher maximum student loan limit. Independent undergraduate students can borrow $9,500 for their first year, $10,500 for their second year and $12,500 for their third and fourth years of study. As with dependent students, the maximum student loan limit is prorated when the remainder of the program is less than one year.
The higher maximum annual student loan limit also applies to dependent students whose parents apply for but are unable to get a PLUS Loan.
Annual Loan Limits for Graduate Students
Students enrolled in a master’s, doctorate or other graduate degree program can borrow up to $20,500 per academic year through the Stafford Loan programs. The limit is steady for all years of a graduate program, and all levels of graduate degrees.
Obama has reduced the deficit by two thirds from what it was when he was elected. The vast majority of the 18 trillion is the result of the Bush presidency and recession.So me talking about socialists spending themselves into bankruptcy isn't clue enough for my fiscal responsibility stance? obama has us up to over 18 trillion in debt. The REPUBLICANS have lowered increased spending.You have posted not one fucking word about fiscal responsibility. The last five presidents have been three Republicans and two Democrats. Guess which of the five presided over lowering deficits and which over rising deficits.Which proves my point, you think fiscal responsibility is irrational.No. It requires something you lack; rationality.No, it requires doing the left thing, which requires more faith than religion.Unlike religion though, socialism doesn't require a holy book simply to do the right thing
While clamoring for more war? War tends to cost a lot of money. War with Iran, let's go fight Isis on the ground. Where do you think that spending comes from?So me talking about socialists spending themselves into bankruptcy isn't clue enough for my fiscal responsibility stance? obama has us up to over 18 trillion in debt. The REPUBLICANS have lowered increased spending.You have posted not one fucking word about fiscal responsibility. The last five presidents have been three Republicans and two Democrats. Guess which of the five presided over lowering deficits and which over rising deficits.Which proves my point, you think fiscal responsibility is irrational.No. It requires something you lack; rationality.No, it requires doing the left thing, which requires more faith than religion.Unlike religion though, socialism doesn't require a holy book simply to do the right thing
WTF, I don't see a list of countries you have been to. How hard is it to list some countries you have been to in Europe and simply answer 'none'?You can't read. That was answered above.How many European countries have you explored? Landing in a tourist city and seeing the tourist sites doesn't count. How many have you actually spent time in, perhaps traveling the country and going into the small towns and the countryside? Have you even been to one?Total bullshit. In every measure. Look at our homes, cars, entertainment, land etc.And yet, in the nations of Europe that you would call socialist, the opposite is true. They have a better quality of life than we do, by any measure.
He said he lived in Germany for seven years. Did not say in what capacity.WTF, I don't see a list of countries you have been to. How hard is it to list some countries you have been to in Europe and simply answer 'none'?You can't read. That was answered above.How many European countries have you explored? Landing in a tourist city and seeing the tourist sites doesn't count. How many have you actually spent time in, perhaps traveling the country and going into the small towns and the countryside? Have you even been to one?Total bullshit. In every measure. Look at our homes, cars, entertainment, land etc.And yet, in the nations of Europe that you would call socialist, the opposite is true. They have a better quality of life than we do, by any measure.
The Left generally has had a kneejerk reaction to being called socialists, and that is to vehemently deny it.the Left lectures that all our publicly run programs and institutions are examples of Socialism we already have. then they demand MORE OF THAT, and FIGHT any attempt to privatize anything. Then the same left-wingers that lecture on what socialism is STILL CRY that you "dont know what socialism is" even after THEY told you what it was.
what's up wit that?
Again, just to be clear 100 billion in entitlements, 380 in corporate bailouts, and 6 trillion dollars for war. Guess which party REALLY keeps pushing the war button? Going so far as some Republicans saying its time to go to war with Iran, or wanting us to go fight Isis head on, sure Republicans want to cut spending, cut spending on Americans and use that money (and increase our debt because the amount they cut isn't NEARLY enough to pay for our wars) to stop the terrorists by continuing to kick the hornets nest that is the middle eastSo me talking about socialists spending themselves into bankruptcy isn't clue enough for my fiscal responsibility stance? obama has us up to over 18 trillion in debt. The REPUBLICANS have lowered increased spending.You have posted not one fucking word about fiscal responsibility. The last five presidents have been three Republicans and two Democrats. Guess which of the five presided over lowering deficits and which over rising deficits.Which proves my point, you think fiscal responsibility is irrational.No. It requires something you lack; rationality.No, it requires doing the left thing, which requires more faith than religion.Unlike religion though, socialism doesn't require a holy book simply to do the right thing
While clamoring for more war? War tends to cost a lot of money. War with Iran, let's go fight Isis on the ground. Where do you think that spending comes from?
I would argue that Sweden is the democratic socialist standard-bearer, and that we don't want to go that far.Sweden Not a Socialist Standard-Bearer At All
Ed Krayewski|Jun. 8, 2012 2:21 pm
Writing in Bloomberg, Anders Aslund becomes the latest to point out that Sweden isn’t the total social welfare state so many Americans who wish one for the U.S. perceive it to be:
The [currently in opposition] Social Democrats [who were the architects of Sweden’s 20th century planned welfare state] haven’t only joined the free-market consensus, but seem to attack the current government from the right, pushing for a better business environment. Gone are demands for the restoration of social benefits. Opinion polls have rewarded the Social Democrats for their right turn with sharply improved ratings. Sweden is still offering good social welfare, but more efficiently and sensibly and increasingly through the private sector. This model of falling taxes and public spending is rapidly proliferating from the north of Europe toward the south, and the northern Europeans have little tolerance for the statist conservatism and fiscal negligence of Southern Europe. Nor do the Swedes understand the fiscal irresponsibility of the U.S., while they still admire American research and innovation.
Before the “headwinds” in Europe (precipitated largely by an overextended debt-laden welfare state) that President Obama blames for a supposedly stalled recovery (even though the private sector is apparently doing fine), liberals (the real kind!) in Sweden were preaching the free-market to a wayward continental Europe:
The European Social Model is being heavily discussed in Europe. Some still laud it, but its problems are obvious, with low economic growth, an aging population coupled with “pay-as-you-go” pension systems, and widespread persisting unemployment… For a time in the early 1990s Sweden abolished all farm subsidies and had one of the most deregulated agricultural sectors in the world, before unfortunately being forced to re-regulate when entering the European Union’s (EU) Common Agricultural Policy. In 1996 Sweden deregulated its market for electricity, allowing private competition in distribution. Today, half the nuclear power plants are owned by a German corporation. Telecommunications, postal services, and public transportation have largely been deregulated, opening up new markets. The state monopolies have been abolished, and the telephone company has been partially privatized. The introduction of a voucher system has opened up a market in which parents have a high degree of choice over where to send their children to school. Health care has largely been opened to private alternatives, thanks to the doctors’ and nurses’ labor unions. In fact, one of Stockholm’s largest emergency hospitals, St. Göran’s, is a private company listed on the stock exchange. Sweden has a comparatively low corporate tax rate of 28 percent. The process for opening a business is relatively straightforward, ranging from one week to a couple of months. Sweden presents few barriers to foreign investment, maintaining restrictions only in some limited national-security–related sectors. Most commercial banks in Sweden are privately owned and operated. Banks are allowed to offer a full range of services, and foreign banks have access to the sector. Few working days are lost to strikes. It is easy to close down factories and move investments abroad. There is no legal minimum wage. Unlike in other European countries, retailers do not have their hours regulated. In 2005 the government abolished inheritance and gift taxes. The Swedish Competition Authority has forcefully reacted against local politicians who restrict full competition. Sweden has high immigration per capita and was, along with the Britain and the Republic of Ireland , the only original EU member not to impose restrictions on workers from new member countries. The pension system has been reformed from the problematic “pay-as-you-go” formula to a program funded according to the performance of the economy. In the fully funded system all Swedes choose investments for their pensions. If the economy does not grow, pensions will be low, and there are mechanisms that prevent the system from going bankrupt. These changes, which would have been seen as radical if enacted in the “Anglo-Saxon” market model, have paid off for Sweden , permitting a 2006 GDP growth forecast of about 4 percent. Inflation was lowered to an average 1.4 percent last year. Granted, it is an easy task to become a paragon of liberalization in today’s Europe . But it shows that what many Europeans favorably refer to as the Swedish model is not applied anymore in Sweden . The remnants of the old model—high income taxation (60.3 percent on average), the high value-added tax (25 percent), the regulated labor market, and the insufficiently reformed social-redistribution systems—are the problematic areas in the Swedish economy, not its bold vanguard. If someone had predicted in the 1980s that Sweden would follow the social-democratic model set by France or Germany, I as a libertarian would have agreed. Today I can say that Europe should embrace the Swedish model.
You wouldn’t guess Sweden started moving away from its total social welfare model as early as the 60s given the tendency of central planners and their apologists n this country to use Sweden as an example of the wonders of central planning and Keynsian economics. Austrian economist Bob Murphy, via Tom Woods:
Bob Murphy notes that Paul Krugman, in his typical style, misleads about what’s been happening in Sweden. Bob writes: “Did you have any idea thatSweden ran a budget surplus of 2% of GDP in 2011? Me neither. Reading Krugman certainly did[n't] give me any reason to suspect that. Krugman had produced a chart and implied that the United States was engaged in more austerity than Sweden. Go look at his post. He calls it ‘spending side austerity’ presumably to cover his bases. But it’s not like he says, ‘Oh, admittedly, Sweden is running a budget surplus, but I’m saying that’s because of their loose monetary policy which has boosted revenues and allowed them to reduce transfer payments…’ No, none of that. He just implies that conservatives are insane, puts up an irrelevant chart, and then gives a very misleading analysis of it.”
Previous Reason on the myth of Swedish socialist successes
Reason.org: Follow the Swedes to Market –Based Taxi Deregulation
Sweden Not a Socialist Standard-Bearer At All - Hit Run Reason.com
LOLThat's funny. Greece is failing because of corruption, not socialism.
If the Right doesn't want this, it had better start formulating a clear argument along those lines pretty quickly.
