T Nation

Effect of Bush Tax Cuts

Good article on the impact of the tax cuts – you’ll have to follow the link to see the very helpful graphic, as I’m not tech-savvy enough to be able to post it:

http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0408/27/a09-255537.htm

Bush fails to get deserved credit for tax cut benefits

Despite reporting distortions, a congressional report shows the rich pay proportionately more in taxes while all income earners do better

By Donald Luskin

A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry claiming it proves that ?Over the last four years, the burden of taxes has shifted from the wealthy to the middle class.?

Those are politically motivated lies that distort the findings of the report. Here?s the truth.

The report proves that what President Bush said about his tax cuts is true: ?Tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes.?

It?s true for the rich, and it?s true for the not-so-rich. Across 109.4 million tax-paying households ? from the wealthiest 1 percent with incomes averaging over $1 million to the lowest-earning 20 percent of people with incomes averaging $14,900 ? the report shows that all income classes have seen their income tax rates lowered thanks to Bush?s cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

The CBO report shows how 2004 income tax rates have dropped for everyone compared with tax laws in force in 2000.

The report also shows that Bush?s tax cuts have been ?progressive? ? that is, they have shifted the share of the overall federal income tax burden toward the wealthy and away from lower-income earners. Without the Bush tax cuts, the highest-earning 20 percent of households this year would have paid 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. Now, after the Bush tax cutes, their share of the burden has risen to 82.1 percent. Every other group now pays a smaller share of the total income tax burden.

Another part of the CBO report shows how the income tax burden has shifted upward for the rich and downward for everyone else.

What a victory for compassionate conservatism. Everybody gets an income tax cut, and when it?s all done the rich end up paying proportionately more.

The report also shows that Bush managed to craft a tax reduction package that even benefits the lowest-earning taxpayers who already pay what amount to negative income taxes. That?s right, thanks to various refundable tax credits, before the Bush tax cuts the lowest-earning 20 percent of income earners not only paid no income taxes ? on average they received money from the Internal Revenue Service. Now that?s compassionate.

But will Kerry or the media give Bush one ounce of credit for any of that? No, the liberal establishment always has to find a way to demonize anything that comes from the policies of Bush.

Virtually parroting the first paragraph of a Democratic congressional press release, the Wall Street Journal story began: ?President Bush?s three tax-cut laws will reduce this year?s income taxes for the richest 1 percent of taxpayers by an average of $78,460, more than 70 times the average benefit for the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, congressional analysts found.?

First, the Journal gives the false impression that the statistics cited in the first paragraph are from the CBO report. They are not. They appear nowhere in that report. Instead, they are from a separate analysis of the CBO report by the Democratic members of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.

Second, the Journal?s version of the Democrats? analysis inserts a critical ? and erroneous ? word that was deliberately not used by the Democrats. The Journal refers to income taxes ? when the Democrats just refer to taxes.

It?s an important distinction, because the 2002 tax cuts allowed for greater deductibility of capital expenses for corporations ? a deliberate (and successful) attempt to stimulate corporate capital investment after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The CBO attributes those corporate tax cuts to individuals, based on the extent to which individuals receive dividends and capital gains.

Naturally, the highest-income earning taxpayers will get the bulk of this ? even though all taxpayers enjoy the many benefits of a stronger economy as a result of greater capital investment by corporations.

If that corporate tax cut and the CBO?s quirky methodology for attributing it to individuals it is eliminated from the analysis, then the 70-1 advantage of the top 1 percent versus the middle 20 percent is almost cut in half. Yes, the Democrats surely used data selectively to make their claims as extreme as possible ? that?s their partisan job. But the supposedly objective Journal made the data seem even more extreme than the Democrats did.

Third, the Journal eliminated a critical word from the Democrats? press release ? ?2004.? The corporate provisions of the 2002 tax cut expire after 2004, so the extreme numbers focused on by the Democrats settle down considerably in 2005 and thereafter.

Robert Williams, the economist who is the chief author of the Congressional Budget Office?s report, told me he was disappointed with the way his work has been distorted.

You would think seasoned congressional staff members would know by now how Washington works in an election year. But apparently even they have never seen presidential candidates and the media as rabidly partisan as they are right now.

Donald Luskin is chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC, an independent economics and investment-research firm in Menlo Park, Calif. Send letters to The News at 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226, (313) 222-6417 or letters@detnews.com.

BTW, is Kerry’s position on the tax cuts that he will simply let them lapse if he wins?

[Update}

Kerry’s position on taxes is: “Raise them!”

The $110,000 Question

By MARTIN FELDSTEIN
September 1, 2004; Page A12

While the Republican Convention is rightly focusing on what a second Bush term would mean, voters should compare that with the policies of the Democratic candidate. When it comes to taxes, John Kerry says he will raise taxes on taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 but will not increase taxes on the “middle class.” Since most Americans regard themselves as middle class, they may feel that they won’t be hit by a Kerry tax increase if their income is under $200,000. But while promising not to raise taxes on the middle class, Mr. Kerry is actually considering a big tax increase on families with taxable incomes of $80,000 and even less.

Of course, he doesn’t put it quite that way. He speaks instead about raising the maximum amount of income on which the 12.4% Social Security payroll tax would be levied from the current $87,900 to $120,000. For someone with a salary of $110,000, that would mean a combined employee-employer payroll tax increase of $2,740.

That’s a big tax increase for such an individual. A $110,000 salary earner with a spouse who looks after two children and with the typical income tax deductions for that income level has taxable income of $79,000 and pays an income tax of $13,400. The $2,740 payroll tax increase would therefore be the same as a 20% increase in that income tax bill.

Mr. Kerry’s suggested increase in the payroll tax would do more than just raise the tax burden on millions of families who regard themselves as middle class. For those with wages between $87,900 and $120,000, it would take the marginal payroll tax rate on each extra dollar of earnings from zero to 12.4%. The resulting large increase in the individual’s overall marginal tax rate would distort substantially the amount that people work, the effort with which they work, their interest in more training and more responsibility, their willingness to take entrepreneurial risks, etc. The higher marginal tax rate would also encourage substituting lower value fringe benefits for cash compensation.

Here are the specifics. For taxpayers now earning between $87,900 and $120,000, the overall marginal tax rate (including the federal marginal income tax rate of 25%, the Medicare payroll tax and a state income tax) would rise from 33% to about 43%. Experience with past tax changes suggests that raising the marginal tax rate from 33% to 43% would cause individuals to reduce their taxable earnings by about 7% by changing the way that they work and the way that they are compensated. Someone who now earns $110,000 would reduce his taxable income to $102,000. In practice this change wouldn’t happen immediately but would mean a smaller increase in taxable income over time than would otherwise have occurred.

This reduction in taxable earnings not only reduces the revenue gain from raising the payroll tax ceiling but also causes an outright loss to the government of personal income tax revenue. For many individuals, the extra payroll tax revenue would be more than offset by the lower personal income tax revenue, causing a net loss of revenue to the government.

Here’s why. Since an individual who initially earns $110,000 would react to the higher marginal tax rate by reducing his taxable income to $102,000, the payroll tax revenue that he and his employer pay would only rise by $1,748 rather than the $2,740 that would be collected if there were no change in behavior. Furthermore, income tax revenue would go down by 25% of the $8,000 fall in his taxable earnings or $2,000. In addition, because the increased employer portion of the payroll tax reduces personal taxable income, the income tax collections fall by an additional $218. Finally, the reduction in pretax wages also lowers revenue from the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax by $266. Putting the pieces together shows a payroll tax increase of $1,748 and losses on the income and Medicare taxes of $2,484. For this $110,000 earner, every extra dollar of Social Security tax revenue produced by the Kerry plan would cut other tax revenue by more than a dollar. Raising the taxable income ceiling would actually cause a net fall in total tax revenue for this individual of $736.

The distorting effect of the higher marginal tax rate on the way people work and the form in which they take their compensation creates a waste of real income that economists call the “deadweight loss” of the tax change. This pure waste is over and above the decline in earnings and the loss of tax revenue. For the individual who originally earned $110,000, calculations show that the deadweight loss caused by the higher marginal tax rate is about $3,100 even before taking account of the distorting effects on economic growth.

For individuals with incomes over $120,000, the increase in the payroll tax ceiling would not change the reward for additional work or the relative tax on cash income and fringe benefits. They and their employers pay an additional combined payroll tax of $3,980. The impact on taxable income of the half of this tax that is paid by employers reduces the income tax and Medicare payroll revenue by about $560. The net revenue gain is therefore about $3,420 for each of these individuals.

So the rise in the payroll tax ceiling would mean higher total taxes for some individuals and lower total taxes for others. To calculate the overall national effect of raising the payroll tax ceiling, my colleague Dan Feenberg and I have used a sample of about 100,000 anonymous individual tax returns provided by the Treasury Department. We adjust these data to allow calculations at the 2004 income level. Here’s what we found.

The Kerry idea to raise the income ceiling for the Social Security payroll tax to $120,000 would increase the payroll tax revenue by $19 billion if there were no effect on taxpayer behavior. But changes in behavior shrink the additional payroll tax revenue to $16 billion and cause federal and state personal income tax revenue and Medicare payroll revenue to fall by about $11 billion. This means that more than two-thirds of the $16 billion increase in Social Security revenue is just a back door transfer from general revenue and the Medicare trust fund.

The net revenue gain would therefore be only about $5 billion or less than 30% of the $19 billion traditional “static” estimate of the payroll tax gain that ignores the impact of higher tax rates on taxpayer behavior and on the personal income tax liability. Finally, the total deadweight loss – i.e., the total pure waste caused by the distorting effect of the tax – would be about $9 billion. The total cost to the private sector of the government’s raising the net revenue of $5 billion in this way is therefore $14 billion – or nearly a $3 cost to taxpayers for every extra dollar of revenue that the government collects.

It’s hard to think of a worse tax policy than one that raises very little revenue but causes a very large distortionary deadweight loss. But that’s the tax policy that Mr. Kerry says he is considering.

Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, is an economics professor at Harvard and a member of the Journal’s Board of Contributors.

More good stuff on Bush’s economic record:

Wall Street Journal Editorial
The Anti-Hoover
September 1, 2004; Page A12

As the Republican conventioneers proclaim the Administration’s infallibility inside Madison Square Garden and protesters build “Bush-villes” outside, is there room out there for a balanced view of President Bush’s track record? Since nobody else seems to be offering voters the big picture, here’s our take on the Bush economy.

John Kerry and the Democratic talking points compare Mr. Bush to Herbert Hoover again and again, and they are right only in the sense that his Administration has witnessed a net loss of jobs across four years. But the truth is that Mr. Bush has had to steer through some very large hazards that could have produced a much deeper, even a Hoover-like, slump. The tech bubble that began to burst in spring 2000, the 9/11 attacks and the corporate scandals all sapped the confidence of business – and the seeds of all of these were inherited from the Clinton years.

Even Democratic economists, such as Laura Tyson and Robert Rubin, agree that faced with recession some fiscal stimulus, perhaps including tax cuts, was necessary. That is, they acknowledge the need to run a budget deficit as a countercyclical measure. But their preferred tax cut is the temporary “rebate,” putting money into the hands of consumers in the hope of stimulating demand. Beyond that, they favor increased government spending for the same purpose.

Mr. Bush actually tried this in 2001, with his “insurance policy” round of tax cuts, in the form of rebates and marginal-rate income-tax cuts that were phased in over several years. But phased-in cuts are an incentive to defer income, and after 9/11 it became clear this was not sufficient, and that the U.S. economy risked sinking into a deeper slump.

At that point, Mr. Bush deserves credit for not taking the politically easy road of trying more of the same. Instead he doubled down on his tax cut bet, shifting the emphasis from stimulating demand to stimulating the productive elements of the economy. This change in approach, not tax cuts or deficit spending in themselves, is the apostasy that now drives the Democrats crazy.

But the overwhelming evidence so far is that this has worked. The graph nearby shows that while growth bounced back some in early 2002, it retreated later that year and into the beginning of 2003. It was only when the 2003 tax cuts passed Congress in mid-year that the expansion really gained steam.

Those tax cuts are criticized for favoring the rich. In fact, they lowered the burden for all, although because the rich pay the most taxes it is inevitable that in dollar terms they enjoyed the biggest break. The child tax credit took many lower-income workers off the tax rolls entirely. The elimination of the marriage penalty, increased college tuition deductions and higher retirement contribution limits all helped the middle class.

But in retrospect, it’s clear that the largest economic boost came from cutting the tax on capital. By reducing the bite on dividends and capital gains to 15% from as high as 38.6%, investors’ calculations of the return necessary to justify any given level of risk was immediately reduced. Accelerating the marginal rate cuts to take place immediately also lifted the incentive to invest. The stock market rose and balance sheets improved. Not surprisingly, all of this has led to more investment.

It’s scary to think what the economy would look like now without the tax cut. High oil prices this summer, combined with the prospect of higher interest rates ahead, have given consumers pause. But the investment side of the economy has picked up the slack. The “animal spirits” of the economy were bolstered and are now regaining their natural optimism.

Mr. Bush’s economic choices have not been perfect. He has failed to expend any political capital to restrain the spending impulses of Congress. Sarbanes-Oxley may also have swung the regulation pendulum too far, and tardy telecom reform prolonged the slump in that industry. The steel tariffs were a blunder of the first order, though they were later repealed and the Administration is now leading on a host of trade-opening agreements.

Household wealth today is at an all-time high. The jobless rate, at 5.5%, is the same as it was in November 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for re-election touting prosperity. The budget deficit has returned, but if there is ever a time to tolerate a deficit it is during recession and war, and with renewed growth tax revenues are rising again. Given all he inherited, it’s more accurate to call Mr. Bush the anti-Hoover.

More info, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, on the tax cuts working to raise tax revenues. Imagine that…

As many of us have said, the deficit is a spending problem, not a problem caused by “cutting the taxes of the rich.”

Windfall for Washington
July 15, 2005; Page A10

Let’s see if we can get this straight: When tax revenues fall and budget deficits go up, it’s bad news. But when tax revenues rise and deficits decline, it’s still bad news.

At least that seems to be the way a sizable chunk of Washington is reacting to this week’s report from the White House budget office that the federal deficit is down by nearly $100 billion this fiscal year, that the deficit as a share of GDP is down to 2.7% (very near its historical average), and that this is all happening because tax receipts are surging by more than 14%. Uncle Sam is having a better year so far than even Paris Hilton, but half of the Beltway is depressed.

John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, seems especially upset that this revenue surge isn’t coming from wage income, but rather from investment income – that is, the so-called “non-withholding” income tax collections which have skyrocketed by some 30% this year. “These are typically taxes paid on one-time capital gains, bonuses, stock-options income that may not recur,” he laments.

Well, sure, Congressman, the 2003 reductions in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains seem to be resulting in much higher tax revenues on … dividends and capital gains. This is called the Laffer Curve effect, and we thank Mr. Spratt for validating it. If he wants those revenues to “recur,” maybe he’ll even vote to make those tax cuts permanent.

This revenue surge from investment income also rebuts the mantra that the 2003 tax cuts were a giveaway to the rich. Nearly half of all Americans have some kind of stock ownership, and thus have shared in these gains in investment income. And if most of the extra tax income is coming from capital gains and dividend payments, that would have to mean that the rich in America are paying more taxes, not less, as a result of the 2003 tax cut.

By the way, we don’t recall Mr. Spratt and other Democrats lamenting when a similar spike in taxes from investment income was boosting tax revenues to historic heights as a share of GDP during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, as per the nearby chart. Then it was all said to be an economic miracle; now it’s a windfall for the wealthy. This selective budget criticism couldn’t be related to who’s sitting in the White House, could it?

There is a looming budget problem, but it has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts or insufficient tax revenue. It is a government spending crisis, especially the liabilities that politicians have promised to retirees in Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that spending as a share of our national output based solely on current promises will surge from about 20% today, to 25% in 2025 and to 34% by 2040.

In order to balance the budget at those spending totals, we would have to double the highest income tax rate to 70%, raise payroll taxes to 30%, and the corporate income tax rate would rise to twice the average of U.S. trading partners. Or if we tried to borrow to finance all this spending, our debt ratings would slip to junk bond status, according to an analysis by Standard and Poor’s.

Republicans share a hefty part of the blame for creating the most fiscally unaffordable new spending program in the past quarter century: the Medicare prescription drug bill, with an unfunded liability that is larger than the GDP of every other country in the world.

But the “deficit hawk” Democrats have been equally disingenuous. Most Democrats who voted against President Bush’s prescription drug bill did so because the multi-trillion-dollar plan wasn’t generous enough to seniors. They have also rejected every overture by Mr. Bush to shore up Social Security’s long-term finances, even a proposal to trim future benefits for wealthier retirees. Every White House proposal to cut spending in this year’s budget – agriculture subsidies to upper income farmers, slight cutbacks in Medicaid payments, reductions in Amtrak subsidies, a decline in pork barrel highway projects – has been rejected by the “deficit hawks” in Congress.

So thank heaven for the tax cuts that have helped to spur the economy that is now throwing off higher tax revenues. As the chart shows, those revenues are now rising back to their modern average as a share of GDP, just as supporters of the tax cuts predicted. And if the tax cuts are made permanent, and as the economy grows and incomes continue to rise, Americans will be paying even more in taxes as they move into higher tax brackets. The real windfall here isn’t for the rich but for Washington. Instead of griping, Mr. Spratt ought to be doing cartwheels.

Did I read that right BB? The top 20% income earners pay 82% of all taxes? And that is after the Bush tax cuts!

Will someone explain to me why they think that this is fair?

The tax cuts did $h!t for me.

AMT hammers me.

The tax burden is definitly not fair.

WSJ editorial page is as credible as the NY Times editorial page.

Not.

Last year, with all the election rhetoric, you would’ve thought we were in another depression! Obviously that’s not the case and the Bush Admin. has done a helluva job with their economic policies. Bush walked into an economic shitstorm when he took office: 2nd largest stock market crash in history, a tech industry crash, rapidly rising unemployment, a huge industrial and manufacturing sector slowdown, unprecedented corporate scandal, etc., etc. Oh, and then that whole 9-11 thing didn’t help much, either.

Where are we now? Lowest i-rates in 40 years, lowest unemployment rate in several years, dollar regaining it’s strength, the manufacturing sector back in positive territory, the stock market hitting 4-year highs, an extremely robust housing market, strong consumer demand/spending/confidence, etc., etc. All of a sudden, the Demos/liberals don’t have much to say about the Nation’s economy, which according to them last year, was tantamount to a depression. Then again, they never seem to have anything positive to say about our country.

Marmadogg: AMT has nothing to do with Bush. AMT is a solvable problem. I suggest hiring a qualified tax advisor to help you with your AMT problem.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
WSJ editorial page is as credible as the NY Times editorial page.

Not.[/quote]

It’s far more credible!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
WSJ editorial page is as credible as the NY Times editorial page.

Not.

It’s far more credible![/quote]

I agree to disagree.

Cheers!

im not a big bush supporter but i cant blame the economy being bad on him. the president can not make the economy goes bad. the economy does that itself. its goes up it goes down it goes up it goes down in a cycle and even the most advanced economic theorist still cant fully explain it. I just chalked it up to being a down cycle.

Now something that the president can do is try to help implement policies to stop the slide from going so far down. I cant really comment on bushes efforts on that becaue we cant get a straight answer from either the right nor the left on that issue.

the one thing i am pissed about is how he cut pell grants. A year ago when I didnt need extra finacial aid I could get a pell grant. Now I need finiacial aid (and my parents income is still the same) now all of a sudden im not poor enough to get the aid I need to go to school. I had to break my fucking neck trying to find ways I can get my ass back in school to pay for it. now i cant blame him for that one

[quote]BigCorey75 wrote:
Now something that the president can do is try to help implement policies to stop the slide from going so far down. I cant really comment on bushes efforts on that becaue we cant get a straight answer from either the right nor the left on that issue.

The policies have been implemented: tax cuts, low interest rates, other tax incentives. Did you not read the thread? Or a newspaper in the last year for that matter?

the one thing i am pissed about is how he cut pell grants. A year ago when I didnt need extra finacial aid I could get a pell grant. Now I need finiacial aid (and my parents income is still the same) now all of a sudden im not poor enough to get the aid I need to go to school. I had to break my fucking neck trying to find ways I can get my ass back in school to pay for it. now i cant blame him for that one[/quote]

Boo hoo, you, me and most people I know. So, you’re saying it’s Bush’s fault that you have to work hard to get an education. Gotta love the entitlment-victim mentality!

[quote]BigCorey75 wrote:
im not a big bush supporter but i cant blame the economy being bad on him. the president can not make the economy goes bad. the economy does that itself. its goes up it goes down it goes up it goes down in a cycle and even the most advanced economic theorist still cant fully explain it. I just chalked it up to being a down cycle.

Now something that the president can do is try to help implement policies to stop the slide from going so far down. I cant really comment on bushes efforts on that becaue we cant get a straight answer from either the right nor the left on that issue.

the one thing i am pissed about is how he cut pell grants. A year ago when I didnt need extra finacial aid I could get a pell grant. Now I need finiacial aid (and my parents income is still the same) now all of a sudden im not poor enough to get the aid I need to go to school. I had to break my fucking neck trying to find ways I can get my ass back in school to pay for it. now i cant blame him for that one[/quote]

I was in college when Clinton was in office and he expanded Pell grants and increased the amount of student loan money available to students.

Without this I do not think I would have been able to complete my college degree.

[quote]BigCorey75 wrote:
…the one thing i am pissed about is how he cut pell grants. A year ago when I didnt need extra finacial aid I could get a pell grant. Now I need finiacial aid (and my parents income is still the same) now all of a sudden im not poor enough to get the aid I need to go to school. I had to break my fucking neck trying to find ways I can get my ass back in school to pay for it. now i cant blame him for that one[/quote]

I know it seems difficult especially when you are in the middle of it. However, do what I did to get through College. I worked two jobs and slept when I could. It was not easy, but I like to think that along with my diploma I also gained other things doing it this way…Give it shot!

[quote]PCH wrote:
Boo hoo, you, me and most people I know. So, you’re saying it’s Bush’s fault that you have to work hard to get an education. Gotta love the entitlment-victim mentality![/quote]

That is a silly assertion.

Pell grants should not be decreased for students already reliant on them. If the program is going to be cut is should be cut for new applicants but current students that qualify should receive the same amount of help.

How can you assume that a Pell grant recipient does not work hard.

I do not know if you have been paying attention but 40+ hour a week minimum wage job will not cover the tuition, books and meager living expenses required for going to a state college.

My federal tax payments have more than made up for the $600 Pell grant I qualified for by junior and senior years of college.

Are you people kidding me?!!??

Bush lied, the economy died!!!

Seriously, I heard ON CNN people saying how much the tax cuts have helped. Most surprisingly, TWO people on CNN were applauding the move.

Thought I’d be fair to the liberals when they try to institute balance into their discussions.

Balance=Both sides to any story.

JeffR

R U trying to say that because im bitching about a way to help pay for school that im crying about working hard? BS. How do you implement a “no child left behind” act then cut one of the major resources that poor students need to attend college. I go to a private school which tuition runs in the upwards of 30,000 dollars. My parents cant afford for me to go to the school but the school felt I was qualified to recieve the type of great education that they provide there students. So if there is something the government can do to help me out to recieve the education im going to take it. Then I hear this “no child left behind” then one of the major sources that poor people can use to attend school and get education gets cut. you tell me who is full of shit in this argument?

not everyone gets dealt a fair hand in life my friend. My parents are very hard working people who work hard for alot of money and just because of that I dont think that should prohibit me from getting a quality education if i choose.

oh yeah and as far as working two jobs, going to my school and playing football its impossible to work two jobs enough to get an income thats worth anything. I would if i could.

R U trying to say that because im bitching about a way to help pay for school that im crying about working hard? BS. How do you implement a “no child left behind” act then cut one of the major resources that poor students need to attend college. I go to a private school which tuition runs in the upwards of 30,000 dollars. My parents cant afford for me to go to the school but the school felt I was qualified to recieve the type of great education that they provide there students. So if there is something the government can do to help me out to recieve the education im going to take it. Then I hear this “no child left behind” then one of the major sources that poor people can use to attend school and get education gets cut. you tell me who is full of shit in this argument?

not everyone gets dealt a fair hand in life my friend. My parents are very hard working people who work hard for not alot of money and just because of that I dont think that should prohibit me from getting a quality education if i choose.

oh yeah and as far as working two jobs, going to my school and playing football its impossible to work two jobs enough to get an income thats worth anything. I would if i could.

[quote]BigCorey75 wrote:
not everyone gets dealt a fair hand in life my friend. My parents are very hard working people who work hard for not alot of money and just because of that I dont think that should prohibit me from getting a quality education if i choose.[/quote]

Bullshit. If you want to go to college bad enough, you will find a way. College isn’t a right. You can ‘choose’ all you want, but unless you are willing to do what it takes to get there, you might as well be pissing on your leg.

You would if you wanted to bad enough. This “poor me - somebody help me” crap is for losers.

I went back to school with a wife and two kids. I delivered pizzas, and my wife never left the house to get a job. Student loans, and hard freaking work. Spare me the “needing an income that’s worth anything” bullshit. If you can’t do it as a single kid - you are doomed to a miserable excuse of a life.

BigCorey75:

I don’t know who is feeding you this entitlement garbage, but I suggest you get over it if you want to get the most out of life. You need to learn what your real rights are as an American. They are few but sacred, and if you embrace them they will take you further than any of these imaginary rights will (such as the right to a college education).

I really doubt that any THREE part-time jobs would earn enough money to pay for a school with tuition over $30,000.