Displaying 1 - 10 of 57 Forum Posts 1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Dec 12, 2016 06:36 PM
    Last: 1mo
    611
    I look at this as more of reigning in the crazy amounts of loan interest debt, by forgiving some of it. So seems like the primary 'forgiveness' plan is to pay based on your income, by %. Somewhere in the ballpark of 10-15% of your earnings. Over 20 years. Then the remaining balance after 20 years will be forgiven... I would say that would be plenty to pay back an overpriced education.
  • Nov 08, 2016 10:19 PM
    Last: 2mo
    228

    All depends on the House and Senate majority, right? If the president has the majority in one, what they want to accomplish can actually happen. If they have both and do nothing, they are the definition of a lame duck. But if they have neither, I expect a solid standstill, if not a regression.

    So.. for the first 2 years at least, if Hillary wins, I don't expect her to accomplish much. If Trump wins, look out. He can accomplish much, including dismantling a lot of what Obama put in action, like Obamacare.

  • Oct 31, 2016 10:28 AM
    Last: 2mo
    362
    Dead heat right now. 42/42. Looking like NC will go red. I imagine New Hampshire will do the same.. any chance the majority goes blue by the end of the night?
  • Nov 08, 2016 08:23 PM
    Last: 2mo
    371

    Here I am with yet another hypothetical forum. But I think this is perhaps my single biggest complaint with elections in general. And I wonder how alone I am in this thinking. Okay, here it is..

    I think we should completely do away with electoral college voting and chose the presidency strictly on the entire country's popular vote alone.

    Want EVERY vote to truly, truly matter? Make the popular vote the decider. How can you see a map with a state with only 3% reporting, and call it one way or the other, for just one example? Gerrymandering/redistricting, and red/blue districts, among the main reasons.

    Electoral voting inherently gives way to selective campaigning and vast efforts to 'rig' or said politely 'skew' the results only where it makes sense and is advantageous. It's an antiquated system that makes me angry watching it all play out.

    Can anyone explain to me why this wouldn't be a good idea?

  • Nov 08, 2016 02:40 PM
    Last: 2mo
    723
    I struggle to fully understand just all the powers the President does and does not have. And some of those rules seem to be changing in my lifetime, with regards to war specifically. Given that and the nuclear option, I have to agree with you that Trump is a dangerous person to give those powers to. It's dubious to think that the president has enormous powers to greatly improve the economy single handily, or to change to much with the way the world operates, without the backing and support of the other branches of govt. But with war, oh yeah. The president can definitely change the world that way. And while I don't support a lot of Hilary's decisions and resume on conflicts and what she will chose in the future as president, I would rather her with that responsibility 10 fold over Donald Trump. I imagine Clinton will run the country much like Obama did. Trump.. he is truly a wild card that I don't care to see play out, at least with that awesome power.
  • Oct 31, 2016 05:41 PM
    Last: 2mo
    313

    Found that Last Week Tonight vid btw. Good stuff:

  • Nov 01, 2016 01:02 PM
    Last: 2mo
    843

    Yeah, appears to be pretty reliable polling here. I didn't think Trump would negatively effect Republicans from holding the House, as I think voters still vote down party lines for lesser known seats regardless. And even if many Republicans have become anti-Trump, it doesn't appear to have created too many anti-Republicans. I am most interested in the Senate majority race. Looks like a straight coin flip to me right now. I have a feeling that the Democrats will take majority lead this time around. That would give them 2/3. Solid, but still not quite good enough to make tons of change, without the House backing them for legislation passing.

  • Oct 31, 2016 05:41 PM
    Last: 2mo
    313

    Just watched a Last Week Tonight episode, that ended with Oliver asking why is voting on a Tuesday still a thing? Turns out, it's (in part) due to religious reasons (the Sabbath). And we have yet to change the logic of scheduling with election day voting.

    He also brought up something I don't think I have heard before, but I am sure has been brought up several times in the past.. we should make election day voting a national holiday. That way we can maximize the voter turnout and make it easier for people with 9-5 office or service jobs.

    He also recommended having multiple voting days, or perhaps moving the day of voting to the weekend, all with the same goal in mind, raising voter turnout.

    I think this is a great idea. And unlike most holidays, we obviously wouldn't have to 'celebrate' it every year. Just every 2 years, because honestly voting for congressional positions and local government is just as, if not more important, anyhow.

  • Oct 27, 2016 04:40 PM
    Last: 2mo
    6.7k
    Good post. Definitely something to always keep in mind, as this will directly affect how much you get when you retire. Thankfully, most of my earnings have been saved electronically the last decade or so. But I'm sure this was even worse of an issue before the internet took off.
  • Oct 28, 2016 02:47 PM
    Last: 3mo
    3.9k
    You'll need to contact the company that you work for, for that. This site is for discussing government policies and programs. Does the company that you work for have a website? Or perhaps if you are needing that info for approval on a lease or something along those lines, I have used 3 months of bank statements myself, in the past. Hope that helps.