Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Carville unloads on Democrats but still supports "Baby Bonds" thumbs down

Posted by bell_flower 
Carville unloads on Democrats but still supports "Baby Bonds" thumbs down
February 11, 2020
James Carville unloaded on the Democrats this past week and said they don't have what it takes to defeat tRump. No clear message, etc. It's available anywhere on line.

Carville called out a few things I agree with such as: "free" cawlege for all is a bad idea and so is forgiving all student loan debt. It raises the ire of people who paid back their loans and makes people think the party is going too far to the Left. (Note: I am one of those people, however I also believe a great deal of the problem is for-profit schools + predatory lenders. I'd rather see a government with greater consumer protection, which is non-existent under tRump. Trump and his Republican cronies won't be behind any effort to reel in corporate greed anytime soon. Another topic for another day.)

I thought, this man is talking some sense, but then Carville went on to say that "Baby bonds," which were supported by Cory Booker, who has since dropped out, are a FABULOUS IDEA. I looked it up, found it here and my head freaking exploded.

The whole article is infuriating, particularly because some numb nutted person is touting the "low cost" of this program at 82 billion dollars a year, and

Quote

“It would cost less than the tax expenditure on excluding pension contributions from taxable incomes,” she writes, “or the tax expenditure on the preferential tax rates given to income from capital gains and dividends.”

So I assume this person wants to remove the ability for WORKING PEOPLE to temporarily shelter their 401(k)s from taxes? Or raise the capital gains for people who are saving/investing money, and give it to people who lay back and shit out brats they cannot afford?

And by all means, let's PAY PEOPLE TO HAVE BRATS when the world is overpopulated as it is. the world 'fail' on flames

I realize tRump has pulled the biggest mindfuck ever on some people in the middle class because he is definitely not on their side, but I read shit like Baby Bonds and think, why can't any of them get it right?

Why do both parties pander to parents, particularly indigent parents, when they and their progeny are causing the biggest drain on infrastructure and resources? Rhetorical question: I realize it gives them cannon fodder, an easily exploited workforce, etc.
Re: Carville unloads on Democrats but still supports "Baby Bonds" thumbs down
February 14, 2020
That is ridiculous, as an 18-25 year old white person I had a negative net worth. I don't know how they are coming up with those numbers but suffice to say there are plenty of poor people and poor young adults of any color. It is likely a few celebrities and higher earners who are skewing the numbers.

I think the main reason tRump is in office is because certain democrats have gone far too left and have alienated the majority of the population. And they are doing it again with all the freebie promises. If anything, the word "free" uttered by a politician should sound warning bells in the collective public's heads because many of them are about to get fleeced. The student loan forgiveness is a great example of a stupid idea designed to pander votes. I find it hilarious that people actually think it is realistic. It has to get through Congress and I guarantee you it will take forever to enact. Probably waste tons of tax payer money just in time for someone else to be elected and overturn it. Or, it will end up being some small amount forgiven, where the lowest income person with the highest loan might be forgiven $2500 in a year and it is a sliding scale from there. The higher your income and the lower the amount owed the less "forgiveness" given, never mind that you struggled while young with low income and a higher loan amount. Administrative costs would be much higher than any loan forgiveness amount. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if the doctors find a way to monopolize it for themselves. After all, doctors are the ones responsible for the law changing and no longer allowing bankruptcy to be filed on student loans in 1976. Before the law was changed they would graduate medical school and file bankruptcy.

This is the same government that taxes us 12.4% (employee and employer combined tax) and yet the amount we receive in retirement is a pittance compared to what we pay in. Even at 3% return we should get around 81% of what we earned on average yet the most common percentage is around 22-40% of an average year's pay. And then there is the shortfall. And there is definitely some fleece in there too. I think they'd be much better off moving 25% of the social security into index funds with a 75% bond rate. That seems like the most reasonable approach to eliminate the shortfall to me.

Campaign promises from politicians are never half as good as promised. Plus, what about all the people who didn't go to college or spend years of their lives sacrificing to pay off student loan payments?
It's amazing how politicians in the US always seem to be concerned about the cost of something when it's for the peasants, like tuition-free college or medicare for all. When it comes to tax cuts for the rich and corporations, funneling money to the military industrial complex it's blank checks as far as the eye can see. You don't hear anyone expressing concern as to whether the government can afford it. How convenient. bemused eye roll
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login