Live&DieBillsFootball Posted April 29, 2008 Posted April 29, 2008 What disturbs me is the inability to deduct the interest after a certain income level. That is just b.s. It is the same as the tuition deduction for dependants. You are allowed to deduct 4K per kid. I had 2 in college at the same time, and spent a whole lot more than this. My total deduction? 2 K for both kids combined. Why? Because I am "rich." After a combined income of 60 K, the deduction decreases. Now, do our lawmakers really care about education? Huckabee did. He wanted to give free tuition to illegal aliens. It is the same thing wrt energy. I spent $3,200 on a new, energy efficient heating system. Tax deductible, right? Sure....but I only saved a whopping 168 dollars. Why? You guessed it....I am "rich." Now, do our lawmakers really care about saving energy? Edit: Yes, this is a whining post and I am sorry for this. Things were more fun when I was fooled by the political b.s., ya know? Molsen and Pasta Man must be some happy m.f.s. The vast majority of Government provided college financial aid is "need-based". If the parents earn above a certain level, they do not qualify for grants, subsidized loans, etc. It's very frustrating when you complete your FAFSA forms only to find out that the government considers you wealthy enough to pay for your kids college education. The same is true for deducting college tuition and college loan interest. If you make above a certain level, don't expect the government to subsidize your children's college costs. It sucks that the aid doesn't go to everyone regardless of income, but then the cost of the government programs would be that much higher. Higher income families can take advantage of tax advantaged college savings such as 529 accounts. Also, public colleges are a great alternative to a lifetime of educational debt. Thankfully, my oldest is going to UB this fall and will be living at home. If all goes well, I can get him through college debt-free.
Wacka Posted April 30, 2008 Posted April 30, 2008 I'll sound like an old codger, but the first year of UB back in 1975-76 cost me about $75.Tuition was about $750. I got a NYS Regents Scholarship ($500/year)and the TAP (Tuition Assistance Program-needs based) provided about $175 more. By 1979, when the Carter malaise was in full effect, I knew people who were taking out student loans at 6-7% and putting them in CDs at 16%(inflation was close to 10%) and making money.
DC Tom Posted April 30, 2008 Posted April 30, 2008 I'll sound like an old codger, but the first year of UB back in 1975-76 cost me about $75.Tuition was about $750. I got a NYS Regents Scholarship ($500/year)and the TAP (Tuition Assistance Program-needs based) provided about $175 more. By 1979, when the Carter malaise was in full effect, I knew people who were taking out student loans at 6-7% and putting them in CDs at 16%(inflation was close to 10%) and making money. Back when a regents scholarship meant something. When I finished college, the regents scholarship was down to $250, and my books cost me $300.
blzrul Posted April 30, 2008 Posted April 30, 2008 Back when a regents scholarship meant something. When I finished college, the regents scholarship was down to $250, and my books cost me $300. Yeah me too - I was a National Merit Scholar as well. You'd think the top 3% in the country would score a little better than $250. I guess that my school matched it, bringing the grand total to $500. Of course $500 wasn't chickenfeed in those days but still...I looked at the U of R and it was over $5k back THEN. My dad turned down a chance to teach at the UR Med School and I was PISSED because then I could have gone tuition free. Ah well, working my way thru school at night was a character builder.
TheMadCap Posted April 30, 2008 Posted April 30, 2008 I had five Stafford loans between 1994 and 1998. Only one was subsidized, but like a dumbass, I let the interest compound and turned a 3k loan into a 6k loan. Chalk it up to an expensive lesson in economics. Anyways, I am still playing em off, it's not that hard. Although, I don't know what I would be eligable for these days all things being the same. I was still able to deduct the interest (not much to make a real difference this far out) even this year. I envy all those kids who's parents were nice enough to save and sacrifice for years to give them the free money for college so they could go and drink, screw, and not study...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 30, 2008 Posted April 30, 2008 Interest is bad. Loans should be free. No one should ever profit off providing something to someone else. Unless you want to sit below the blasphemers and gays. Fine, go ahead and charge excessive interest.
colin Posted April 30, 2008 Posted April 30, 2008 college is supposed to be higher education, not universal bullsh1t. all the sub morons going to school to party and "study" garbage like history and gay studies for 12 hours a week for 4 years is a tragic waste of time and money. of course many do this because a degree has become sort of a minimum requirement for many jobs.
DC Tom Posted April 30, 2008 Posted April 30, 2008 college is supposed to be higher education, not universal bullsh1t. all the sub morons going to school to party and "study" garbage like history and gay studies for 12 hours a week for 4 years is a tragic waste of time and money. of course many do this because a degree has become sort of a minimum requirement for many jobs. Admittedly, there's a lot of garbage study areas in college...but history?
blzrul Posted April 30, 2008 Posted April 30, 2008 Admittedly, there's a lot of garbage study areas in college...but history? that explains why mankind keeps doing the same stupid things over and over....can't learn from mistakes if you don't study them
Alaska Darin Posted April 30, 2008 Posted April 30, 2008 that explains why mankind keeps doing the same stupid things over and over....can't learn from mistakes if you don't study them The problem isn't whether we study them, it's whether we learn from them. The fact that there are still liberals in the world tells us all we need to know...
DC Tom Posted April 30, 2008 Posted April 30, 2008 that explains why mankind keeps doing the same stupid things over and over....can't learn from mistakes if you don't study them People don't apply historical lessons, they apply their own dogmatic absolute notions in the ridiculous belief that somehow THIS time the results will be different because their beliefs are better than the last guy who tried to force HIS dogmatic absolute notions on others. It's why we're in Iraq, and why retards like Molson are such...retards. Or, basically...what Darin said.
Alaska Darin Posted April 30, 2008 Posted April 30, 2008 People don't apply historical lessons, they apply their own dogmatic absolute notions in the ridiculous belief that somehow THIS time the results will be different because their beliefs are better than the last guy who tried to force HIS dogmatic absolute notions on others. It's why we're in Iraq, and why retards like Molson are such...retards. Or, basically...what Darin said. Reminds me of that old "Bullwinkle" short. "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of a hat!" "Again? But that trick never works!" "This time for sure!" Dumbasses.
Adam Posted May 1, 2008 Author Posted May 1, 2008 The problem isn't whether we study them, it's whether we learn from them. The fact that there are still liberals in the world tells us all we need to know... I actually know quite a few liberals who aren't out there. Both sides are a mirror image of each other- I can't stand right or left wing lunatics.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 The problem isn't whether we study them, it's whether we learn from them. The fact that there are still liberals in the world tells us all we need to know... Again... Given his place in history and the political climate of the time... Wouldn't Jesus have been considered a liberal... Heck a radical liberal? In the political structure of the time of course. I guess we don't need the visionary types anymore... Things haven't changed much in over 2,000 years... Still condeming the liberal... Just put them on a cross inbetween two revolutionaries!
Alaska Darin Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 Again... Given his place in history and the political climate of the time... Wouldn't Jesus have been considered a liberal... Heck a radical liberal? In the political structure of the time of course. I guess we don't need the visionary types anymore... Things haven't changed much in over 2,000 years... Still condeming the liberal... Just put them on a cross inbetween two revolutionaries! Why would I care about the politics of the greatest imaginary friend ever created? Nice attempt at metaphor, though. Liberalism is simply idealism. I don't have a problem with people wanting to give away their money for the greater good and hippy programs that have an extremely low success rate versus outlay. I have a problem with them stealing MY money.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 Why would I care about the politics of the greatest imaginary friend ever created? Nice attempt at metaphor, though. Liberalism is simply idealism. I don't have a problem with people wanting to give away their money for the greater good and hippy programs that have an extremely low success rate versus outlay. I have a problem with them stealing MY money. No. You have a problem with control. You want to be in control at all times, which you are not. Suck it up.
Alaska Darin Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 No. You have a problem with control. You want to be in control at all times, which you are not. Suck it up. Another wickedly inaccurate judgement. Big surprise. If I'm such a control freak, how do you explain all the liberal/wacko righties that inhabit this board? Yeah.........
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 Another wickedly inaccurate judgement. Big surprise. If I'm such a control freak, how do you explain all the liberal/wacko righties that inhabit this board? Yeah......... A ruse... SDS' ultimate orders...
Typical TBD Guy Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 Again... Given his place in history and the political climate of the time... Wouldn't Jesus have been considered a liberal... Heck a radical liberal? In the political structure of the time of course. I guess we don't need the visionary types anymore... Things haven't changed much in over 2,000 years... Still condeming the liberal... Just put them on a cross inbetween two revolutionaries! How can you know if Jesus would have been considered a liberal? His basic philosophy was that we should help out those less fortunate. I don't believe he ever really elaborated on the specifics of HOW those less fortunate should be helped...i.e., the classic argument of using the public means of the state (the liberal argument) or the private means of the individual (the conservative argument). In my opinion, the conservative argument is much stronger. The Robin Hood moral question has already been mentioned in this thread. Plus, the evidence is pretty overwhelming where private charitable organizations end up helping the poor, sick, stupid etc... much more than the government (Katrina relief, public schools, Dept. of VA health care, etc.).
molson_golden2002 Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 How can you know if Jesus would have been considered a liberal? His basic philosophy was that we should help out those less fortunate. I don't believe he ever really elaborated on the specifics of HOW those less fortunate should be helped...i.e., the classic argument of using the public means of the state (the liberal argument) or the private means of the individual (the conservative argument). In my opinion, the conservative argument is much stronger. The Robin Hood moral question has already been mentioned in this thread. Plus, the evidence is pretty overwhelming where private charitable organizations end up helping the poor, sick, stupid etc... much more than the government (Katrina relief, public schools, Dept. of VA health care, etc.). But would Jesus have worn an American Flap lapel on his toga? I don't think so. Jesus therefore hates America and is in fact, a liberal.
Recommended Posts