I know what we could do, we could make it less burdensome for them to go to college and break the cycle!
And they take jobs and taxes with them. How do you not understand this? Seriously. By raising taxes you’re lowering future tax revenue.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If you want their tax revenue don’t chase them away when they create new wealth and jobs. The 3 companies I listed started from scratch. It was new money and new jobs created that didn’t exist.
I said income not revenue. They have 6 figure incomes.
And you think we should reward the people who run up debt and not the people who worked their way through school? Can you explain the logic of that?
Yes, if you read my posts, you will understand the logic of it.
Your moral hazard argument is crap given this is a economic misallocation, driven by policy, which impacts vast swaths of society. Since policy created this misallocation, policy is needed to fix it.
After 40 years, the policy of “rugged individualism” enacted by Reagan, popularized by Limbaugh, and cemented by Gingrich, has been an absolute and abject disaster. This is just the start of fixing their moral and economic failures.
JohnT-thank you👍
I stop reading posts when they drone on with pages and pages of copy and paste without comment.
That’s pretty weak, man.
The moral hazard argument is a self fulfilling extension of bad policy spending. If you finance poor life decisions you will create more of them. What you want are policies that encourage people to make good financial decisions and not bad ones.
I went to a state school that primarily served a commuter student base. It was a VERY basic college. Clearly the original intent was to keep costs down. The frills were few and often financed by wealthy people. Now it’s a campus school with all kinds of money spent on student lifestyle. This was a not a good use of state funds. It’s raised the cost of tuition and encouraged students to live on campus which is a further financial drain.
your post 261 had zero comment on your part. It was entirely a dump of cut and paste.
Of charts which I created, yes. Of a 2 page article which I wrote, yes. Plus a cite to the rand institute.
Your point?
It was clear. I’m not clicking on a dumpster of cut and paste.
Good grief. It’s mostly pictures. Sheesh.
I’m not sure that you understand actual history here. We’ve been lowering taxes on the wealthy, and they’ve been moving jobs overseas. The threat that raising taxes on the wealthy will cause them to move jobs overseas is pretty feckless.
Right, but the only point that you are making is that catering to the wealthy is not necessary in order to create wealth and jobs.
Then you know some pretty rare drivers indeed. I mean, you admit that there are not enough drivers, why do you think that is, if it actually pays that well?
Someone provides you with the data that you claim to want to see, then you refuse to read it.
Some quote about a horse and water seems apropos here.
Technically, someone else wanted me to backup a sidebar claim about Reagan. That poster seemed to be satisfied, others… not so much. 
I’m sorry, could you elaborate?
(please don’t, you’ll break the internet.)
Be careful about including Microsoft in any story about “young people starting huge companies from nothing”. In fact, Bill Gates’s family was very wealthy — for example, his grandfather was president of a bank. He went to private schools where, largely due to his parents’ influence, he was able to get complete access to computers in high school.
So… why should the Democrats have to justify that when for decades the Republicans have trumpeted giving money to the wealthy who very much don’t need it? If it’s OK for the Republicans then it’s OK for anyone else. Otherwise you’re saying some animals in the barnyard are more equal than others and that is NOT democracy.
Generally, you help the ones who need it. You don’t sneer at them for being too shiftless to have paid off their debt yet (or for their institutional poverty).